Skip to main content

Full text of "Secrets Of Our Spaceship Moon"

See other formats

Snt&recntiq £?-ft* sf 

PcJ' IcrCLSigih? pzpoh'fjue 

July, 1969. Apollo II has landed on the moon: 
Aldrin and Armstrong are making their rounds 
collecting lunar samples . . . 

Armstrong: ‘What was it? What the hell was it? That’s 
all I want to know.’ 

Mission Control: ‘What’s there? . . . (garble) Mission 
Control calling Apollo II . . 

Apollo II: ‘These babies were huge, sir . . . 
enormous . . . Oh, God, you wouldn’t believe it! I’m 
telling you there are other spacecraft out there . . . lined 

up on the far side of the crater edge . . . they’re on the 


moon watching us . . .’ 


This transcript from Apollo IPs moon mission is just 
one of many to which NASA refuses to give its official 
recognition. Here, at last, is the complete uncensored 
story behind the moon landings: clear and indisputable 
facts offered by astronomers and the astronauts 
themselves . This book also reveals NASA’s private ad¬ 
missions about how and why America’s powerful Space 
Agency remained silent in the face of such overwhelming 
evidence of UFO activity on and around the moon. 

MOON: together these books represent an astonishing 
break-through in our understanding of our nearest 

A Iso by Don Wilson in Sphere Books: 

Don Wilson 


30/32 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1 8JL 

First published in Great Britain by Sphere Books Ltd 1980 
Copyright © 1979 by Don Wilson 

Published by arrangement with DELL PUBLISHING CO. INC., 


Grateful acknowledgement is made for permission to reprint the 
following copyrighted material. 

‘Did Our Astronauts Find Evidence of UFO's on the Moon?* by 
Joseph Goodavage: Reprinted by permission of Saga Magazine, 

© Gambi Publications, Inc. 

Excerpts from THE EXPANDING CASE FOR THE UFO'S by Morris 
Jessup: Used by permission of Citadel Press. 

From SOMEBODY ELSE IS ON THE MOON by George Leonard: 
Copyright © 1975 by George Leonard. Reprinted by permission of the 
David McKay Company, Inc. 

From THE VOYAGES OF APOLLO by Richard Lewis: Copyright © 
1974 by Richard Lewis. Reprinted by permission of Quadrangle/Times 

From OUR MOON by H.P. Wilkins: Published by Frederick Muller 
Ltd., London. Used by permission of Anthony Sheil Associates Ltd. 

Excerpts from The New York Times , Nov, 9, 1969 by Walter Sullivan 
© 1969 by The New York Times Company. Reprinted by permission. 

From ‘The Moon Is More of a Mystery Than Ever’ by Earl Ubell. 

© 1972 by The New York Times Magazine, April 16, 1972. 

Chart, ‘The Speed of Sound Travelling Through Lunar Metals': 
Reprinted with permission from CRC HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY 
AND PHYSICS, 54th Edition. Copyright The Chemical Rubber Co., 
Inc., CRC Press, Inc. 


This book is sold subject to the condition that 
it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, 
re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated without 
the publisher's prior consent in any form of 
binding or cover other than that in which it is 
published and without a similar condition 
including this condition being imposed on the 
subsequent purchaser. 

Printed in Canada 



The more you study the Moon , the more you will become 
aware that it is an orb of mystery — a great luminous 
cyclops that swings around the Earth as though it were 
keeping a celestial eye on human affairs . 

— Frank Edwards 

• • . the origin and history of the Moon have remained a 
mystery despite intensive study by eminent scientists dur¬ 
ing the last century and a half. 

— Dr. Harold Urey 
Nobel prize-winning scientists. 

Of the bases the visitors might have from which to conduct 
their explorations of Earth , none holds more logical or 
intriguing possibilities than our Moon. 

—John Magor t editor , Canadian UFO Magazine 


You are now about to embark on an intriguing intellectual 
odyssey. You are about to read one of the most fantastic 
theories ever conceived. 

Some will regard this theory and its defense as bordering 
the lunatic fringe, or just simply science fiction. Others will 
immediately classify it as crackpot science. But people with 
open minds will, we believe, give it fair consideration. All 
we ask is that you let the evidence speak for itself. 

For this book is constructed from a fabric of fact, not 
fiction. Scientific evidence supporting the Soviet theory that 
follows is taken from authenticated sources, much of it 
from the files of our space agency scientists. Proofs from 
the past as well as the present, cast interesting light on the 
origin and make-up of the Moon which has even modern- 
day experts baffled. Ancient historical documents reinforce 
a Soviet theory which explains the puzzling nature of this 
strange world in our skies. Proof positive will be forthcom¬ 
ing that the Moon is in fact not a natural satellite of Earth! 

Do not reject the “unnatural 1 * origin of this seemingly 
natural celestial body that circles us, just because it may 
seem at first sight to counter common sense. Five hundred 
years ago medieval scientists rejected Copernicus’s crazy 
idea that our Sun and not the Earth was the center of our 
solar system universe. After all did not our eyes every day 
show us the truth—that the Sun rising in the- east, traveling 
across the sky and setting in the west, absolutely prove 
that our star revolved around us. And not the world around 

the Sun! Copernicus was crazy, his contemporaries con¬ 

However, common sense and the accepted scientific belief 
of his day were wrong. In time an “established” fact of sci¬ 
ence that was taught for hundreds of years was toppled 
into the dust. Nevertheless, the “crazy” priest Copernicus 
did not even dare to publish his heliocentric theory until 
he was on his deathbed, for fear of punishment which might 
include being burnt at the stake for his teachings! 

Galileo was imprisoned and nearly put to the torch when 
he declared that the heliocentric theory was fact. Galileo 
too was thought to be a crackpot by many of his own con¬ 
temporaries. He claimed that he had seen craters on the 
Moon and spots on the Sun through a new fangled gadget 
called a telescope. Impossible! Everyone at the time knew 
that the Sun was perfect! 

We also know how other theories like those of Newton, 
Darwin and Freud were opposed by the scientific establish¬ 
ment of their day. 

Even Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of blood was 
laughed at. And Pasteur’s idea that invisible germs or 
“little beasties” caused diseases was ridiculed and Pasteur 
considered a laughing stock by his scientific colleagues. 

On and on the story runs through the entire history of 
science. In fact it would almost seem to be a rule of the 
history of science that what was considered unorthodox 
yesterday is now the accepted orthodoxy of today. 

We have come over eons of time to look upon the Moon 
as a natural satellite of our planet. The unorthodox theory 
of two very orthodox scientific researchers of the Soviet 
Union that the Moon may in reality be a huge hollowed- 
out and internally reconverted “spaceship” may indeed 
someday become the orthodox truth of tomorrow. 

In the twentieth century man has reached out into space 
and touched the Moon. He has walked and worked on an 
alien world—the first undoubtedly of many to come. In 
the entire catalog of human achievements man’s landing 
on the Moon is, in our opinion, and in the opinion of 
many, among his greatest accomplishments. It certainly 
must be classified as man’s greatest exploratory effort. 

It may also lead to man’s greatest discovery. For the 
Moon may, in fact, be the key to many earthbound mys- 


teries, not the least of which is the mystery of man himself! 

For another extraordinary story lies behind this peak of 
human achievement that demands telling. Another tale is 
buried here that remains largely unknown—not only of the 
strange seemingly artificial structures on the Moon that our 
space probes have discovered, nor the strange encounters 
of American astronauts with unidentified flying objects and 
an unknown alien presence around the Moon. Even more 
shocking is the largely untold story of the true nature of 
this mystifying mystery world that is orbiting our planet 

If the theory of two Soviet scientists is correct and our 
interpretation of the brilliant work of American and 
international experts from all over the world who have 
practically torn the Moon apart scientifically is right, 
it could be the most shocking and important story of our 

We therefore dare you to read this book and open-mind- 
edly weigh the evidence. We honestly feel that you too 
will then come to agree with us that the Soviet theory is 
the most startling discovery of your life. 

Many phenomena observed on the lunar surface 
appear to have been devised by intelligent beings . 
Now, U.S. and Russian moon probes have photo¬ 
graphed two such “constructions'* at close range . 

— Dr. Ivan Sanderson 

ONE _ 


Before man journeyed to our Moon.many men of Earth 
were intensely interested in the possibility of finding evi¬ 
dence of alien beings having visited our satellite. Joseph 
F. Blumrich, a leading design engineer at the Marshall 
Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, concluded 
after an eighteen-month study on this subject that the Earth 
and the Moon have been visited regularly by extraterrestrial 
beings. He claimed that eventually we would find their arti¬ 
facts on the surface of our lunar neighbor. 

Why, despite half a dozen manned trips to the Moon, 
haven’t we? To begin with, the area of the Moon’s surface 
we have explored in six Apollo manned missions is minus¬ 
cule. Another problem in our search for such artifacts is 
that they could be placed anywhere and might be in forms 
we have never imagined. 

Science reporter Joseph Goodavage recently quoted a 
high-ranking General Dynamics Corporation executive who 
worked closely with NASA on the many Moon projects as 
stating: “An object or artifact placed by an alien civiliza¬ 
tion on the Moon could be something as obvious as a small 
pyramid sitting atop a mountain peak. We’d literally have 
to stumble over it before anybody would recognize it for 
what it is.” He added: “But nothing less than a full-scale 
exploration of the Moon will turn up whatever is there.” 
{Saga, April 1974.) 

Probably such exploration will not take place until the 
twenty-first century at the earliest. 


Actually, even without full-scale exploration, we have 
discovered a number of structures which appear to be arti¬ 
ficial, during the few manned and unmanned space probes 
we have sent to our Moon. In fact, of the many mysteries 
uncovered in our journeys to this neighboring world, none 
is more mystifying than that of the strange structures dis¬ 
covered there. 

In our book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon (Dell, 
1975) we discussed many different discoveries that have 
been made on the Moon—both American and Soviet. The 
amazing thing is that, as startling and seemingly important 
as they are, little is known of them by the public. 

In fact, even before man journeyed to our satellite, re¬ 
ports of structures sighted on the surface of the Moon 
were numerous. Astronomical literature is crammed with 
them. One of the most startling is the huge bridgelike 
structure seen over the Sea of Crisis in 1954 by John 
O’Neill, former science editor of the New York Herald 
Tribune . This oddity was confirmed by other leading as¬ 
tronomers who also saw it through their own telescopes. 
Some estimated it to be 12 miles, long. 

Of course, the key question is, was it a natural structure 
or of artificial construction? The eminent British astrono¬ 
mer H. P. Wilkins, head of the Lunar Section, British 
Astronomical Association, made this startling statement in 
a BBC radio program: “It looks artificial.” (Donald Key- 
hoe, The Flying Saucer Conspiracy , Holt, 1975.) 

When he was asked what he meant exactly by the term 
“artificial,” Dr. Wilkins answered: “Well, it looks almost 
like an engineering job.” This lunar expert added that it 
was more or less regular in outline, and even cast a shadow 
under a low Sun. He startled everyone when he exclaimed: 
“You can see the sunlight streaming in beneath it.” 

In the entire radio interview, not once did Wilkins refer 
to this structure as being a “natural” bridge. Instead, he 
used words which indicated that he thought it might be 
artificial. The fact that the bridge had not been seen before, 
although the area was well known and often studied, in¬ 
creased the possibility that it might indeed be a construction 
made by beings not of this world—and faddy recently. 

Many other seemingly intelligently constructed “struc¬ 
tures,” like walls that formed squares or rectangles, and 


even strange domelike structures that appeared out of no¬ 
where and at times seemed to disappear, led. many ob¬ 
servers to believe that they are the work of alien intelli¬ 

The chances are, admittedly, that many apparently arti¬ 
ficial constructions are nothing but natural formations, mis¬ 
interpreted by Earth observers due to the vast distance be¬ 
tween us and our nearest neighbor. Space photos of Earth 
teach us a lesson here. From outer space, orbiting vehicles 
have taken photographs that lend to many natural Earth 
formations an aura of artificiality. For instance, from the 
depths of space the Barringer crater of Arizona looks like 
an artificial construction. Similarly, photos of an area at 
the southern edge of the Sahara Desert in northern Nigeria 
show what appears to be a sprawling series of structured 
walls—but we know that these are merely natural forma¬ 
tions. So man must be extremely careful in his conclusions. 


Before our space program sent probing mechanical eyes 
to the Moon, throughout the many decades and even cen¬ 
turies of the so-called telescopic age of lunar study, compe¬ 
tent observers on Earth saw strange things on our satellite: 
unexplainable weird lights and glows sighted on the surface, 
inexplicable changes, and the sudden appearance of struc¬ 
tures. Astronomers thought that the Moon was a lifeless, 
airless, windless, and for the most part erosionless world. 
In fact, a completely changeless orb. Yet unquestionably 
many changes did take place. 

For instance, in 1843 Johann Schroeter recorded unex¬ 
plainable changes in a six-mile crater named Linne. This 
German astronomer made hundreds of maps of the Moon 
over many years. Over a lifetime of observations, the crater 
Linne gradually disappeared. Today Linne is just a tiny 
bright spot with little depth or height, a small pit surrounded 
by whitish deposits. What happened? No one knows for 
sure. * 

*It should be noted that NASA photographs taken by Apollo 15 
reveal that Linne today is a tiny crater (1 Vz miles across). The 
mystery of what astronomers observed has remained just that—a 


Could this competent astronomer have been mistaken? 
Schroeter himself believed there was intelligent life on the 
Moon, and he attributed some of these changes to “the 
industrial activities of the Selenites.” 

Although Schroeter’s contemporaries heartily attacked 
his hasty conclusion that the Moon was inhabited by intelli¬ 
gent beings, nevertheless, in Schroeter’s day, unlike our 
times, many scientists did consider the Moon to be an in¬ 
habited world as is Earth. 

The great British astronomer H. P. Wilkins, commenting 
on these unexplainable changes and Schroeter’s beliefs, 
makes this striking observation: 

We cannot subscribe to this idea because without air 
to breathe it is exceedingly difficult to contemplate the 
existence of Selenites let alone to speculate as to their 
possible activities, industrial or otherwise. It is equally 
difficult to explain these things on natural grounds. 

But there remain some still greater puzzles. Some 
objects do not vary in their physical features so much 
as to the tints or hues of their interiors. There are 
craters which change colour in a very peculiar manner. 
What looks like a green carpet can be seen spreading 
over their floors! (H. P. Wilkins, Our Moon , Frederick 
Muller, Ltd., 1954, p. 130.) 

Even more wild than Schroeter’s speculations were those 
of his fellow countryman and astronomer Gruithuisen, who 
was convinced that great cracks on the Moon were actually 
canals or roads. Wilkins wryly notes: “It was just before 
the first railways were built, otherwise he would probably 
have said they were railways.” (Our Moon , p. 57.) 

Even more bizarre were reports of other competent as¬ 
tronomers. On the night of July 6, 1954, Frank Halstead, 
former curator at the Darling Observatory in Minnesota, 
along with his assistant and sixteen visitors, observed a 
straight black line in the crater Piccolomini, where none 
had been detected before. It was to disappear shortly there¬ 
after, although not before other competent astronomers 
confirmed the discovery. 




One of the strangest of all such lunar reports conies out 
of Japan, where Mainichi> one of Japan’s largest news¬ 
papers, reported the unusual discovery of Dr. Kenzahuro 
Toyoda of Menjii University, who, while studying the 
Moon through, a telescope on the night of September 29, 
1958, spotted what appeared to be huge black letters, so 
pronounced they were easily discernible. The letters seemed 
to form two words: pyax and jwa. No one to this day 
knows what these letters seen on the Moon mean or can 
give an explanation to the experience. 

We emphasize that these are the kind of reports made by 
observers whom Wilkins, former director of the Lunar Sec¬ 
tion of the British Astronomical Association, calls “people 
who have been observing the moon too long to be easily 

Dr. Wilkins adds: “In any case it is incredible that all 
were the victims of hallucination. We must accept the rec¬ 
ords even if we cannot explain them. Our knowledge and 
opinions are the products of existence on the earth; it is 
reasonable to suppose that on another planet conditions 
exist and events take place which have no counterpart on 
our planet. If there are intelligent creatures on other 
worlds, they are most unlikely to have bodies, or minds 
like ours; it would be very surprising if they did.” 

Wilkins concludes: “The moon is an alien and foreign 
world and much of what happens up there must remain a 
mystery until men actually land on its warty surface.” (Our 
Moon , p. 139.) * 

The objection might be made that man has gone to the 
Moon, photographed it completely at close range, and even 
landed and explored some of its surface. And no evidence 
of intelligently made structures or activities was uncovered. 
Or was it? 

The surprising answer to this objection is that it was! 

* The author is pleased to report that the British Astronomical 
Association has announced the formation of a special Lunar Section 
(of the NSW Branch) which will concentrate on solving the mystery 
of changes and unexplainable Lunar discoveries. 


Photos, both American and Soviet, reveal that seeming non 
natural, artificially made structures do exist on the Moonl 



The Soviet space probe Luna-9 took some startling photo¬ 
graphs (February 4, 1966) after the vehicle had landed 
on the Ocean of Storms, one of those dark, circular “seas” 
of lava on the Earth side of the Moon. The photos revealed 
strange towering structures that appear to be lined up rather 
than scattered randomly across the lunar surface. 

Dr. Ivan Sanderson, the late director of the Society for 
the Investigation of the Unexplained and science editor 
for Argosy magazine, observed that the Soviet photographs 
“reveal two straight lines of equidistant stones that look 
like markers along an airport runway. These circular stones 
are all identical, and are positioned at an angle that pro¬ 
duces a strong reflection from the Sun, which would render 
them visible to descending aircraft.” ( Argosy , August 1970.) 

But Sanderson was not the only reporter revealing these 
strange structures to the world. The Soviet press also carried 
articles on them. The Soviet magazine Technology of Youth 
gave an extensive report on them, calling them “stone 
markers” which were unquestionably “planned structures,” 
and suggested that these “pointed pyramids” were not nat¬ 
ural formations but definitely artificial structures of alien 

After examining the photographs of these objects, Dr. S. 
Ivanov, winner of the Laureate State Prize (which the 
Soviets consider equivalent to the Nobel Prize), calculated 
from the shadows cast by the spirelike structures that at 
least one was about fifteen stories high. 

Ivanov, who is also the inventor of stereo movies in the 
Soviet Union, pointed out that by luck—perhaps the space 
probe landed on a spot where the ground had settled, or 
set down upon a small stone or rough spot—“a chance 
displacement of Luna-9 on its horizontal axis had caused 
the stones to be taken at slightly different angles.” This 
double set of photographs allowed him to produce a three- 
dimensional stereoscopic view of the lunar “runway.” 


The result of this bit of good fortune, as Ivanov reports, 
was that the stereoscopic effect enabled scientists to figure 
the distances between the spires. They found, much to their 
surprise, that they were spaced at regular intervals. More¬ 
over, calculations confirmed that the spires themselves were 
identical in measurement. Says Ivanov: “There does not 
seem to be any height or elevation nearby from which the 
stones could have been rolled arid scattered into this geo¬ 
metric form. The objects as seen in three-D seem to be ar¬ 
ranged according to definite geometric laws,” 

This discovery must be heralded as among the most im¬ 
portant discoveries made by either the American or Soviet 
space program. But, strangely enough, for the most part 
they have been ignored. As we shall soon see, other dis¬ 
coveries, equally as important, have been covered up by 
our own space agency. In fact. Art Rosenblum, head of the 
Aquarian Research Foundation, who says he learned of 
the Soviet discovery from Lynn Schroeder and Sheila 
Ostrander, the authors of Psychic Discoveries Behind the 
Iron Curtain, before their work was published in America, 
claims they indicated that authorities at NASA “were not 
at all happy about its publication.” Why not? What is 
NASA trying to hide? asks Rosenblum. (Arthur Rosen¬ 
blum, Unpopular Science , Running Press, 1974.) 

Another question that probably arises in most readers’ 
minds is, what was the purpose of these structures, assum¬ 
ing that they were built by alien beings? Dr. Sanderson 
speculated: “Is the origin of the obelisks on the Earth and 
those on the Moon the same? Could both be ancient mark¬ 
ers originally erected by alien space travelers for guidance 
of late arrivals?” He pointed out that it seems hard to under¬ 
stand why man ever started making obelisks anyway, since 
it is a very difficult job and seemingly purposeless. Or did 
obelisks have a purpose other than Earthly? Could these 
spirelike structures actually be signal spots for the coming 
and going of spaceships, as some speculated? Not marking 
the landing on outer Moon bases but for underground, 
hidden bases located inside the Moon? 

Intriguingly, on the edge of this same Sea of Storms is 
a strange opening that leads down into the Moon. Dr. H. P. 
Wilkins, one of the world’s leading lunar experts before his 
untimely death a few years ago, was convinced that ex- 


tensive hollow areas did exist inside the Moon, perhaps in 
the form of caverns, and that these were connected to the 
surface by huge holes or pits. He discovered such an open¬ 
ing himself—a huge round hole inside the crater Cassini A. 
This crater is one and a half miles across, and the opening 
leading down into the Moon is over 600 feet across—more 
than two football fields laid end to end. Wilkins writes in 
his definitive work, Our Moon: “Its inside is as smooth as 
glass with a deep pit or plughole, about 200 yards across at 
the centre.” 

As we shall see in the coming chapters, hundreds, in fact 
thousands, of UFOs have been seen on or around the sur¬ 
face of the Moon, and a concentration of them has been 
spotted in the Sea of Storms. Could they be coming and 
going through this huge opening or one like it? 


The Soviet discovery is* mind-boggling enough. But, 
amazingly, a similar discovery was made by the American 
space probe Orbiter 2, which took pictures on November 
20, 1966, from a height of 29 miles above the Sea of 
Tranquility—the very same area where our first astronauts 
landed on the Moon. 

The photos of Orbiter 2 show what appear to be the 
shadows of several pointed spires shaped like obelisks—long 
needlelike structures similar to the Washington Monument 
and to Egyptian obelisks like Cleopatra’s Needle, now in 
Central Park, New York. 

From the shadows cast by these long, needlelike spires 
scientists have variously estimated that they range from 40 
to 75 feet high. Soviet scientists examining the American 
Orbiter 2 photos claim that they are much higher—at least 
three times as high as the highest American estimate, which 
would make them as tall as a fifteen-story building! A few 
scientists, like Dr. Farouk El Baz (formerly one of NASA’s 
leading geologists, now with the Smithsonian Institution), 
estimate that these spirelike structures on the Moon are 
as tall as the tallest buildings on Earth—and probably even 
taller! (Saga, March 1974.) 


More important than their height or size, however, is 
their positioning. Dr. William Blair of the Boeing Institute 
of Biotechnology claims they are geometrically positioned. 
Blair, a specialist in physical anthropology and archeology, 
observes: “If the cuspids [these spirelike stone structures] 
really were the result of some geophysical event it would 
be natural to expect to see them distributed at random. 
As a result the triangulation would be scalene or irregular, 
whereas those concerning the lunar object lead to a basilary 
system, with co-ordinates x, y, z to the right angle, six 
isosceles triangles and two axes consisting of three points 
each.” The Los Angeles Times (February 26, 1966) car¬ 
ried a drawing of Blair’s geometrical analysis of the po¬ 
sitioning of these spires, as they were photographed by 
Orbiter 2. (See the NASA photo on inside back cover, 
and note the long, pointed shadows which indicate seven 
spires. Hold the picture upside down for proper effect.) 

Because of this peculiar geometrical positioning, Blair is 
convinced that these seven spires grouped closely together 
are not randomly placed. To him the spires are significant 
simply because they form a right-angled coordinate system, 
resulting in six isosceles triangles and two axes of three 
points each. He believes this cannot be happenstance. Fur¬ 
thermore, as Blair points out, there is also evidence that a 
large rectangular pit exists just west of the largest spire. 
As he observes: “The shadow cast by this depression seems 
to indicate four 90-degree angles and resembles the profile 
of an eroded structure.” 

Blair insists that they should be investigated more thor¬ 
oughly, for, as he points out, if a similar thing had been 
found on the planet Earth, “archeology’s first concern 
would have been to inspect the place and carry out trial 
excavations to assess the extent of the discovery.” 

As this expert anthropologist and scientist notes, if sim¬ 
ilar structures on Earth had been passed off in such a 
fashion more than half the Mayan and Aztec architecture 
known today would be “still buried under hills, depressions 
covered in trees and woods.” In fact, concludes Blair: “If 
these had been passed off as a result of some geophysical 
event the science of archeology would have never been 
developed, and most of the present knowledge of man’s 
physical evolution would still be a mystery.” 


However, not all scientists agree with Blair’s assessment 
of these strange structures. Dr. Richard W. Shorthill of 
the Boeing Scientific Research Laboratory claims that 
“there are many of these rocks on the Moon’s surface. 
Pick some at random and you eventually will find a group 
that seems to conform to some kind of pattern.” 

This is a gross exaggeration on ShortMH’s part, for 
though other such strange groupings of needlelike spires 
and similar puzzling constructions exist on the Moon, they 
do not proliferate in such large numbers that chance, ran¬ 
dom arrangements of a distinct geometrical nature can be 
found all over the place. Furthermore, other scientists, such 
as Soviet space engineer Alexander Abramov, have exam¬ 
ined the Orb iter photos and concur with Blair’s judgment 
that they are indeed geometrically positioned. But Abramov 
believes they are positioned in a very unusual way. His 
geometrical analysis, made by calculating the angles at 
which “they appear to be set,” leads Abramov to conclude 
shockingly that they form what is known as an “Egyptian 
triangle.” Seemingly artificial constructions on the Moon 
that just happen to form what' is known among archeologi¬ 
cal and historical experts on Earth as an Egyptian triangle? 

Says Abramov: “The distribution of these lunar objects 
is similar to the plan of the Egyptian pyramids constructed 
by Pharoahs Cheops [the Great Pyramid], Chephren, and 
Menkaura at Gizeh, near Cairo . The centers of the spires 
in this lunar ‘abaka’ are arranged in precisely the same 
way as the apices of the three great pyramids.” (Argosy, 
August 1970. Emphasis added.) Also see American photo 
of this strange positioning.* 

If Dr. Abramov’s calculations (as reported by Dr. Ivan 
Sanderson) are correct, then this is not only startling 
evidence of intelligence on the Moon but leads to the rea¬ 
sonable conclusion that this intelligence left its telltale 
marks on the planet Earth. 

Only up to now we have not recognized them for what 
they are! 

There is yet another clue which indicates these objects 
are not natural formations but artificial constructions. Dr. 
Farouk El Baz, who maintains that some of the spires are 


* See NASA photo of these structures: Inside back cover. 


“taller than the tallest buildings on earth as calculated by 
the tremendously long shadows they cast on the Moon’s 
surface” (perhaps even more than two to three times the 
height of the tallest structures on Earth!), points out that 
these structures are of a much lighter color than the sur¬ 
rounding lava fields and landscapes, which indicates that 
they are “constructed of different materials.” {Saga, April 

Such conclusions on the part of respected space scientists 
—both Soviet and American—indicate that what we have 
here is the first concrete evidence of the existence of an 
alien intelligence on the Moon. 

But if we are to believe two Soviet scientists of the re¬ 
nowned Soviet Academy of Sciences, there is a whole world 
of evidence that the Moon itself indicates that not only was 
there intelligent life on the Moon at some indeterminate 
time in the past, but intelligent life has been living inside 
the Moon for eons. The evidence they have compiled 
leads them to believe that the Moon may be a hollowed- 
out spacecraft of a sort, steered into orbit around our Earth 
eons ago! 


Art Rosenblum of the Aquarian Research Foundation 
claims he met a scientist formerly employed by NASA 
who had helped design the Houston Space Center. 

Rosenblum declares: “He told me that at about the time 
of . . . photographing the shadows of the obelisks . . . the 
Boeing Aircraft Corporation published this same photo in 
their company newsletter. . ♦ . He had not seen it published 
since then. He also told me that while working for NASA 
he found it uncommonly difficult to get information from 
them. ...” 

Rosenblum pointedly asks: “If monuments had been dis¬ 
covered on the Moon, one would suppose that that is about 
the most important result of the whole Moon probe effort. 
Why is this information not widely publicized by NASA? 
Why are they not fully investigated—or are they? What 


other type of information is being withheld? Why? Should 
not NASA be investigated?” (Unpopular Science .) 

Rosenblum’s implications are not quite true. Certainly 
NASA can be accused of cover-ups, as we have seen, but 
to assert that they never released any information or photos 
on this at all is totally inaccurate. 

On November 22, 1966, NASA did release a photo (see 
photo, inside back cover). At the same time, NASA denied 
that it revealed anything—so very few news publications 
or other media picked up on the story. After all, hadn’t 
the authority , the National Aeronautics and Space Ad¬ 
ministration, spoken? 

However, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles 
Times were among the few that carried stories clearly show¬ 
ing that there might be something to the strange photo. 

The Washington Post, in fact, ran a front-page story 
showing the startling photo with this headline: 




Post staff writer Thomas O’Toole noted that the photo 
indeed showed “six shadows” which were “hailed by scien¬ 
tists as one of the most unusual - features of the Moon ever 

Measurements of the huge shadows in the photo, O’Toole 
went on to point out, showed them to be as short as 2D 
feet and as long as 75 feet. One scientist referred to these 
needlelike shadows on the Moon, says O’Toole in an off¬ 
hand way, as “Christmas tree effect.” Another referred to 
their “Fairy Castle” effect. However, one scientist was 
impressed and called the region the Moon’s “Valley of the 

While NASA feigned ignorance as to just what could be 
causing these shadows, O’Toole noted that “the largest 
shadow is just the sort that would be cast by something 
resembling the Washington Monument, while the smallest 
is the kind of shadow that might be cast by a Christmas 
tree. (Washington Post, November 22, 1966.) 

The New York Times took a much ‘more conservative 
view of the startling nature of these strange shadows and 
the objects creating them. On November 24, 1966, Dr. Thor 


Karlstrom of the U.S. Geological Survey was quoted by 
the Times as saying: 

“The objects casting the shadows are not so nearly spec¬ 
tacular as the shadows themselves.” 

Karlstrom insists that a very low Sun (11 degrees) makes 
them appear much longer than they really are. He even 
denies that all have “a spire-like” appearance, although he 
does admit that these “shapes are very, very interesting,” 
He says at least a couple of the shadows indicate that they 
are created by “squat blocks rather than spires because 
they appear wider than they are high.” 

Other scientists dispute Karlstrom’s calculations and con¬ 
clusions, as we have seen, but Soviet scientists who have 
investigated these photos generally agree that they reveal 
spires, all right, and much higher spires than even the most 
generous American scientists are willing to admit. In fact, 
the Soviets claim that not only are there towering spires 
but their unusual position gives away the fact that they are 
artificial in construction. 


The strange, seemingly artificial structures discovered by 
Orbiter 2 show them to be located on the Sea of Tran¬ 
quility. Was it by accident that the very first men landing 
on the Moon, on the very first manned-landing mission to 
the Moon, were sent to this very same area, near these 
mysterious pyramidal, obelisklike structures? 

Was this just a coincidence? We do know that our space 
authorities at NASA knew of the existence of these strik¬ 
ing structures. They were photographed in 1966, long be¬ 
fore Apollo 11. Surely NASA, knowing of the existence of 
such strange structures and, contrary to their public pro¬ 
nouncements, not knowing for sure whether they were 
artificial or natural, would have been anxious to investigate 
these strange spires. Surely they did. But why is it that they 
did not announce their findings then? Furthermore, dare 
we ask: Did NASA actually choose the Tranquility site 
because of the Orbiter 2 discovery? Perhaps the answers 
to these important questions will become known. Perhaps 
someday we shall know the full truth. 


We do know that Dr. Farouk El Baz, one of NASA*s 
former scientists, now research director at the National Air 
and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution, admitted 
in a magazine interview that NASA actually did carry out 
secret investigations, and he insisted that “not every dis¬ 
covery has been announced.” In fact, El Baz claims that 
NASA was “looking for something” on its manned Moon 
missions. Was that perhaps a much bigger artificial con¬ 
struction? For if the two Soviet scientists are correct, then 
the Moon itself is in part an artificial construction—a 
natural asteroid converted into a hugh hollowed-out space¬ 

Be prepared to face up to new explanations for old 
mysteries on the Moonl 

—George Leonard 

TWO _ 


Not only have strange structures been discovered on the 
Moon, but even more puzzling, mystifying, unexplainable 
lights and moving objects have been seen on a world that 
scientists insist is completely dead. In fact, there have been 
so many reports of mysterious lights and unexplainable 
“happenings” taking place on our satellite that our own 
government space agency, the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration, itself produced a study of them. 
Interestingly, this was done before this same government 
agency sent men to the Moon. 

This remarkable study was called Chronological Cata¬ 
logue of Reported Lunar Events . It included a listing of 
strange lights (both stationary and moving), glows, and 
“happenings” reported by reliable observers over the past 
several centuries. Doubtful reports have been excluded. 

Although the study is extensive, it certainly is not com¬ 
plete. Another group of scientists, working independently, 
reported over 800 solid sightings of strange lights and glows 
on our Moon. Others claim that they actually number in 
the thousands. But the NASA study is impressive. It is im- 


pressive just to think that our own space agency took the 
trouble to make such a study. Surely this indicates they 
suspected something unusual has been taking place on our 
neighboring world. 

What kinds of reports does the NASA study include? It 
is impossible, of course, to give even superficial coverage 
of the entire study, but we have included a fairly repre¬ 
sentative sampling. 

Here is a selection of some of the more impressive 

• On March 5, 1587, “a star is seen in the body of 
the moon . . . whereat many men marvelled, and not 
without cause, for it stood directly between the points 

, of her homes.” (Harrison, 1876; Lowes, 1927.) 

• November 12, 1671—A small whitish cloud sighted 
on the Moon by the well-known scientist Cassini. Since 
clouds do not exist on the Moon, what could it have 
been? Interestingly, today, as in ancient times, UFOs 
have commonly been described as “clouds.” And in 
this NASA account “clouds” were reported to have 
been sighted on the Moon dozens of times. 

• May 18, 1787—“Lightning” was seen on the face 
of the Moon by astronomers Halley and De Louville. 
De Louville explained them away as “storms.” Nei¬ 
ther “storms” nor “lightning” can take place in the air¬ 
less world of our Moon. 

• March-April 1787—William Herschel sighted three 
“bright spots” and an additional four “volcanoes” in 
April 1787. It is difficult to figure out what Herschel 
actually saw, since our lunar scientists have learned 
from Apollo studies that the Moon is a dead world and 
assure us that it has been volcanically dead for the 
past 3 billion years, and certainly there have been no 
volcanoes in recent times. What then were these “vol¬ 
canoes” that the father of modem astronomy saw on 
the Moon? 

Interestingly, Herschel reported that some of these 
strange lights seemed to be moving “above the moon.” 


• July 1821—The German astronomer Gruithuisen 
reported seeing “brilliant flashing light spots” on the 
Moon. “Blinking’ ’or “flashing” lights are reported 
scores of times in this report. 

• April 12, 1826—Black moving cloud over the Sea 
of Crisis (reported by Emmett). Interestingly, this is 
the same area where modern-day astronomers re¬ 
ported seeing a bridgelike structure suddenly appear in 
1954, where none had been detected before. Is it 
coincidental that lights and other inexplicable lunar 
“events” have been reported in this same area dozens 
of times? 

• February 1877—A fine line of light like “luminous 
cable” drawn west to east across Eudoxus Crater. The 
light was observed to last one hour. The average time 
“lights” lasted, according to the study, was over 20 
minutes! They could hardly have been meteors flashing 
against the hard lunar surface, as some scientists 

• July 4, 1881—“Two pyramidal luminous protu¬ 
berances appeared on the moon’s limb . . . They slowly 
faded away ..What could this have been? 

• April 24, 1882—Shadows, both moving and station¬ 
ary, sighted in the Aristotle area. Moving shadows on 
the Moon? What could produce moving shadows ex¬ 
cept something moving? But what could possibly be 
moving on this dead world? 

• January 31, 1915—Seven white spots arranged like 
a Greek gamma. What could this have been? Scientists 
do not know. 

• April 23, 1915—A narrow, straight beam of light 
in the crater Clavius. 

• June 14, 1940—Two hazy streaks of medium in¬ 
tensity, much complex detail. Seen in the crater Plato, 
where thousands of lights have been reported. 

• October 19, 1945—Three brilliant points of light 


on the wall of Darwin. Cited by Moore, one of the 
scientists who prepared the report. 

• May 24, 1955—“Glitter,” suggesting electrical dis¬ 
charge, sighted near the Moon’s south pole. The well- 
known scientist Firsoff was the observer. 

• September 8, 1955—Two flashes from the edge of 
Taurus. Coincidentally (?), this is where the astro¬ 
nauts of Apollo 17 were sent (Taurus-Littrow area). 

• September 13, 1959—The area of Littrow was 
“obliterated by a hovering cloud.” Could this have 
been a UFO? 

• June 21, 1964—A moving dark area sighted by 
several observers in the area south of Ross D. It was 
observed for 2 hours 1 minute! 

• July 3, 1965—Pulsating spot on the dark side of 
Aristarchus; seen for 1 hour 10 minutes. 

• September 25, 1966—Blinking lights in crater Plato 
seen by several observers for minutes. Some described 
the lights as “reddish patches.” Also seen the same day, 
red lights in Gassendi for 30 minutes. A month later 
(October 25) in the same place, “red blinks” were 
again seen by several astronomers. 

• September 11, 1967—A “black cloud surrounded 
by violet color” was sighted in the Sea of Tranquility 
area (where the first mission to the Moon was to be 
sent) by a “Montreal group” of astronomic observers, 
according to this NASA report 

This is just a sampling of what is contained in this study. 
It was compiled by Jaylee M. Burley of the Goddard Space 
Flight Center, Patrick Moore of the Armagh Planetarium in 
Ireland, Barbara M. Middlehurst of the University of Ari¬ 
zona Planetarium, and Barbara L. Welther of the Smith¬ 
sonian Astrophysical Observatory. Apparently NASA was 
impressed by the study—impressed that in fact these re¬ 
liable reporters were actually seeing what they were re¬ 
porting—for soon thereafter NASA carried out Operation 
Moon Blink, a search for unexplainable lights and “hap- 


penings” taking place on the Moon. It was done in conjunc¬ 
tion with cooperating observatories around the world, and 
in a short time Operation Moon Blink reported ten more 
such inexplicable lunar phenomena, three of which were 
confirmed independently and separately by observers out¬ 
side the program. In fact, by August 1966 ten Moon Blink 
stations had detected twenty-eight lunar events! (Lunar 
Luminescence , Grumman Research Report.) 


Of course, the key question is, what influence did the re¬ 
port and the subsequent Operation Moon Blink program 
have on the decision to send astronauts to the Moon? This 
was done before the Apollo missions took place, though 
certainly not before the decision had been made. We shall 
probably never know if it had any bearing, but the possi¬ 
bility is nonetheless intriguing. 

The citings in this NASA report do not tell the full 
story. Frequently investigation reveals that the sighting 
was much more sensationalists than the mere details 
included in the study indicate. Of course, this is under¬ 
standable, for the final report includes only the barest 

For instance, consider an entry in this NASA-spon¬ 
sored catalogue of lunar “events” which in fact describes a 
very unusual rash of sightings. The NASA study reads 

“No. 114—May 13, 1870. Location: Plato: Bright spots, 
extraordinary display. Observer Pratt, Eiger; reported by 
the British Assn. 1871.” 

“Extraordinary” is an understatement! For the myriad of 
lights seen appeared in groups of as few as four and as 
many as twenty-eight! The lights were extraordinarily bright 
—in fact, extremely intense. They also seemed to pulsate at 
times: One would increase in intensity while others dimin¬ 
ished. Almost as if—as one observer put it—“responding 
to the touch of switches of some mysterious lunar operator 
of electric batteries of lights!” 

Thus, this tame entry actually covers up one of the 
weirdest and most inexplicable series of sightings ever re¬ 
corded in the annals of astronomic lunar history. But the 
NASA report passed over it without mentioning its extraor¬ 
dinary nature. For lights were seen not only in the crater 
Plato but in the Sea of Crisis area. And not only just in 


1871 but for several years reports of these strange lights 
and “events 15 in these areas came pouring in. .The Moon 
continued to break out in a splurge of mysterious lights; 
in fact, they seemed to appear in such regular patterns that 
the Royal Astronomical Society of Great Britain held a 
special three-year investigation. 

Again many of these strange, puzzling lights were spotted 
in the Sea of Crisis region—the very same area in which 
many astronomers had reported seeing a huge “bridge.” 
The lights continued to appear again and again—sometimes 
singly, sometimes in groups; at times in straight-line for¬ 
mations, sometimes in circular or even triangular forma¬ 
tions. Most seem to be moving or varying in intensity. In¬ 
deed, it appeared to some observers that they were under 
intelligent control! 

In fact, though the Royal Astronomical Society would 
not admit it publicly, it is reported that privately many of 
its members expressed the belief that an unknown race af 
alien beings on the Moon were attempting to signal Earth. 

It is estimated that about 2000 strange, mysterious lights 
were observed in this extraordinary three-year display. 

Then, as suddenly as they appeared, they disappeared. 
What they actually were, no one has been able to figure 

Something definitely strange is taking place on our 
neighboring world. Moving lights, unexplainable objects, 
seemingly artificially constructed and placed structures— 
all sighted on a supposedly dead and uninhabited world. 

But there is more! The NASA study is far from com¬ 
plete. In our book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon we 
detailed a whole host of impressive unexplainable lights and 
“events” on the Moon, seen by reliable reporters. Further¬ 
more, Dr. William Corliss, formerly with NASA, has also 
compiled an impressive account of weird lunar lights and 
“happenings,” most of which were not included in the 
somewhat conservative NASA report. His are also drawn 
from respected scientific sources. 

Corliss writes: “Transient lunar phenomenon . * . has 
been observed ever since the invention of the telescope (and 
sometimes even without this instrument). It is impossible 
to reproduce the thousands of reports, and a representa¬ 
tive sampling must suffice. 55 (William Corliss, Strange 


Universe, Custom Copy Center, 1975, AOL-103, Al-115.) 

Here is a cross-section sampling of Corliss's collection, 
taken from leading scientific journals and writings of the 
past two centuries. 


• William Wilkins noticed what he called a “star” 
gassing over the Moon—which in the next moment he 
“realized was impossible. . . 

On another occasion Wilkins even saw lights de¬ 
taching themselves from the Moon. He observed these 
fixed steady lights for more than 5 minutes. 

• Robert Hart, competent observer of the Royal 
Astronomical Society, observed “two luminous spots” 
of a “yellow flame colour,” so bright that “they showed 
rays around them as a star would do” (Emphasis 

• Johann Schroeter, a well-known astronomer, saw a 
point of light in the lunar Alps regions, as bright as a 
star, which disappeared only after he watched it for 15 
minutes! To Schroeter’s surprise, “where the light had 
been, a round shadow [now appeared] on the surface 
of the Moon, which was sometimes gray, sometimes 

• Professor Holden, director of the Lick Observatory, 
on July 15, 1888, reported that he saw an “extraor¬ 
dinarily and incredibly bright [light] . . . the brightest 
object I have ever seen in the sky . . . ten times as 
bright as the neighboring portions of the Moon’s sur¬ 

This intense brightness was difficult to account for, although 
Holden thought it was only a volcanic eruption. Some of 
the more conservative explanations claimed that bright spots 
like this were simply “the sun reflecting off lunar snow.” 
The only problem with this inaccurate explanation is the 
fact that snow does not exist on the Moon! Another attempt 
at a “natural” explanation maintains that they are merely 
reflections off metallic elements in lunar mountain peaks. 
But the phenomenon that Holden observed “blazed with 


such a dazzling brilliancy that it would be difficult to acJ 
count for” it by such a flimsy explanation. j 

Others have gone to the opposite extreme and come na 
with bizarre explanations, such as the Sun shining oflj 
“metallic dikes” or “tremendous crystalized masses, with* 
polished surfaces, throwing back the glare of the sunshine! 
like mirrors.” I 

However, critics point out that if this were the case thej 
“glittering eminences” on the Moon would be nothing less 
than “enormous quartz crystals, whose dimensions are 
measured by miles instead of inches.” 

• Science magazine (August 9, 1946, p. 146) also 
carried a report of lightninglike phenomena observed 
on the Moon; observers saw “some flashes of light 
streaking across the dark surface.” 

• Nature magazine (August 18, 1887, p. 367) carried 
a report of “small cumulous cloud observed a little 
distance from the moon.” 

• During a lunar eclipse strange fingers of light were 
seen “illuminating the upper section which was in 

• Dr. Frank B. Harris reported seeing the sudden 
presence on the Moon of “an intensely black body 
about 250 miles long and fifty wide. ...” Harris said 
the sight resembled a crow poised on the Moon. “I 
cannot but think that a very interesting and curious 
phenomena (sic) happened.” That is the understate¬ 
ment of the century! 

It is interesting to note that these reports are missing from 
the NASA study. However, it is understandable why the 
compilers of the NASA technical brief left this out. How 
do you explain such a huge object over the Moon? 

But this is just the problem. How do we solve these 
sightings? Before we traveled to the Moon the lights re¬ 
ported to have been seen there were commonly passed off 
as “volcanic eruptions.” Now, however, since NASA scien¬ 
tists have learned that the Moon has been volcanically dead 


for eons, this explanation seems to be out A NASA pub¬ 
lication, Apollo 17: Preliminary Science Report (1973), 
states clearly that with the conclusion of the Apollo 17 
mission—the last manned trip to the Moon—sufficient data 
and evidence had been accumulated to indicate that vol¬ 
canic activity in the last three billion years on the Moon is 
either “highly restricted or virtually non-existent.” Scien¬ 
tists today generally agree the Moon has been volcanically 
dead for the last 3 billion years 1 

What then were these lights seen on the Moon by the 
thousands over the last several centuries, which so many 
scientists attributed to volcanic eruptions? For instance, 
when the well-known astronomer Grover spotted a bright 
light on the Moon which lasted for 30 minutes, astrono¬ 
mers passed it off as another volcanic eruption. Again in 
1958, when Soviet scientist Nikolai Kozyrev of the Crimean 
Astrophysical Observatory reported that he had spotted a 
bright “cloud” on or near the central peak of Alphonsus, it 
was passed off as “volcanic activity” by many scientists, al¬ 
though Kozyrev himself attributed it to fluorescing gases 
issuing from the crater’s central peak. 

On the night of November 3, 1958, Kozyrev photo¬ 
graphed the spectrum of a reddish patch near the same 
place. The reddish light “seemed to move and disappeared 
after an hour.” Strangely, it was passed off by most astron¬ 
omers as another volcanic event—strangely because vol¬ 
canoes are not generally known to move about. 

At the same time that learned scientists claimed that 
these lights were actually fires of volcanic eruptions, they 
also claimed that the Moon was an airless world. And lights 
of fires—even glows from them—are impossible on an air¬ 
less world. We know that the Moon is without an atmo¬ 
sphere. In fact, Dr. John H. Hoffman of the University of 
Texas pbints out: “If you took all the molecules in a cubic 
centimeter of the Moon’s atmosphere and lined them up 
end to end, they would fit on the tip of your pen. But if 
you did the same thing with the air you breathe, the chain 
of molecules would reach to the Moon and back with some 
left over.” 

Admittedly, other scientists have passed off these bright 
lights and glows seen on the Moon as merely gases released 


from the lunar interior and fluorescing in the light of the 
Sun. Still others claim them to be nothing but solar radia¬ 
tion inducing ionization and exciting fluorescence. 

But former NASA researcher William Corliss points out 
in his coverage that this does not seem to adequately ex¬ 
plain the phenomenon either, since some have been re¬ 
ported on the dark or far side of the Moon. In fact, Corliss 
maintains that though many explanations have been offered 
(such as proton or thermoluminescence and, even less like¬ 
ly, glowing lava or fire-fountains of erupting volcanoes), 
“all have serious shortcomings as explanations of the phe¬ 
nomenon under consideration.” (Strange Universe.) 

What then could they be? Some could be solved without 
a doubt by such explanations. 

Undoubtedly some of those huge glows seen on the Moon 
may be explained by some kind of thermoluminescence, as 
solar radiation fluorescing on the surface of the Moon, but 
certainly not all can be attributed to this. What are they 

Could they not be UFOs? Interestingly, we do know that 
UFOs were seen by our astronauts on their journeys to and 
around the Moon. But our astronauts were not the only 
human beings to get a close look at such unidentified flying 
lights on or around the Moon—at least not if you believe 
Dr. Oscar Carter, a self-styled optics expert and amateur 
astronomer. Before the reader conjures up an image of a 
modern-day lunar Percival Lowell working at some giant 
observatory, it should be pointed out that Carter works 
with standard amateur equipment, although he claims he 
uses them with his own special optical inventions. 

Carter, an investigator for the International UFO Regis¬ 
try, a worldwide Unidentified Flying Objects organization, 
was cited in that organization’s journal UFOlogy as “a re¬ 
liable investigator” who “believes UFOs are using the Moon 
as a base ” ( UFOlogy , Spring 1976.) 

According to UFOlogy 's editor, Dr. D. William Hauck, 
Carter “has seen and photographed UFOs traveling near 
the Moon with the specially designed telescope of his own 
construction,” which he “claims enables him to observe the 
area around the Moon with a clarity never before 
achieved.” ( UFOlogy , Spring 1976.) 

However, Hauck does note that “astronomers at Mount 


Palomar and the Naval Observatory have denied the re¬ 
liability of Dr. Carter’s sightings, the majority of which 
involved small black objects criss-crossing and reversing 
directions over the Mare Crisium and Oceanus Procellarum 

If there is any validity to Carter’s sightings, they might 
have great significance. For, interestingly, these are the very 
same areas—the Sea of Crisis and the Ocean of Storms— 
we cited in our opening chapter as regions where strange, 
artificial constructions have been observed and photo¬ 
graphed by both American and Soviet space probes. 

However, that is the question—are Carter’s sightings 
authentic and genuine? Whether or not there is any valid¬ 
ity to them, there is a professional astronomer and astro- 
physical expert, Morris Jessup, whose credentials are im¬ 
peccable, and whose reputation in the field put him in the 
forefront of discoverers of double stars, who is convinced 
lunar lights are UFOs. And he cites innumerable astron¬ 
omers, many of them leaders in their fields, who claim to 
have seen unidentified moving objects on the Moon. 

The professional judgment of this open-minded scien¬ 
tist, a leading astronomer and astrophysicist, after lengthy 
study of the strange things happening on our Moon, led 
to the unalterable conclusion that the strange lights and 
lunar “happenings” could be attributed to nothing else but 
•Unidentified Flying Objects—spaceships on the Moon! 

In the fifties—that incredible decade which brought a 
sudden rash of UFO activity to our Earth—this astronomer 
suddenly became interested in what UFOs could be. 
With his scientific background and keen mind, Jessup 
came to realize that flying saucers did exist and were 
undoubtedly operated by intelligences that were not of 
this world. Being well versed in astronomy, he soon 
came to recognize their base of operations—the Moon. For 
he knew that the many strange lights seen on the 
Moon and the mystifying “happenings” that have been 
reported as taking place on this mystery world could be 
attributed to nothing less than Unidentified Flying Ob¬ 
jects. Jessup made an exhaustive study of the strange 
lights, glows, and clouds, the many moving objects, changes, 
and even disappearances of certain lunar features, and the 
strange appearance of so-called structures on the Moon 


that had been reported in scientific journals by leading 
astronomers all over the world. Jessup was aware that 
something was happening on our neighboring world, and 
after much study came to the shocking conclusion that in 
fact our Moon was inhabited—that it was undoubtedly the 
base of UFOs visiting the planet Earth. 

Jessup was no crackpot. He brought to this controversial 
study an extensive background that had helped him build 
an impressive list of accomplishments. Besides teaching 
astronomy and mathematics at Drake University and the 
University of Michigan, he erected and operated the largest 
refractory telescope in the Southern Hemisphere for the 
University of Michigan, discovering numerous double stars 
which are now catalogued by the Royal Astronomical 
Society. His books on these astronomic discoveries and his 
cataloguing of various stars are in the University of Michi¬ 
gan library, today, but not a single one of his controversial 
UFO books can be found there in their collection of flying- 
saucer books. That, is what you call academic open-minded¬ 

In two books, The Case for the UFO (Citadel Press, 
1955) and especially The Expanding Case for the UFO 
(Citadel Press, 1957), Jessup details the evidence that led 
him to conclude that not only are UFOs real and intelli¬ 
gently operated spacecraft but telescopic observation over 
three and a half centuries documented the fact that they 
have been on the Moon. 

Many of the more impressive sightings that Jessup found 
in old astronomic records are listed in the NASA study. 
Some we have already analyzed in this chapter. Yet there 
are many others that Jessup came up with that are worth 
looking at. 

In The Expanding Case for the UFO Jessup has a section 
entitled “Let There Be Light-on the Moon?” in which he 
presents this startling conclusion: “No single indication of 
UFO activity on the Moon is more intriguing than the un¬ 
explained intermittent lights.” 

He points out that a close study of these indicates that 

*A NASA official charged that astronomer Jessup “never published 
a scientific paper in his life.” A simple check at the University of 
Michigan graduate library reveals such important books as New 
Southern Double Stars t 1933. 


they exhibit evidence of intelligent control: They some¬ 
times fluctuate, “unlike the steady glare of reflected sun¬ 
light; sometimes they appear suddenly, shine for a few min¬ 
utes or hours, and as suddenly disappear.” 

The sightings he cites are too numerous to detail here. 
But a few of the more impressive ones are worth looking at: 

• A “speck of light,” “very distinctly seen like a con¬ 
siderable star,” sighted at the foot of the lunar Alps. 
The German astronomer Schroeter picked up a sim¬ 
ilar object here, although the British astronomer Birt 
does not consider them identical.” ( Astronomical 
Register , 1865, Vol. Ill, page 189.) 

• Astronomer A. Fauchier of the Marseilles Ob¬ 
servatory “was startled to see two bright points of 
light on the Moon.” ( UAstronomie , Vol. VI, p. 312.) 

• “A self-luminous spot on the Moon” seen in the 
dark body of the Moon, varying in intensity like “an 
intermittent light.” ( Monthly Notices of the Royal 
Astronomical Society , 1948, Vol. VIII, p. 55.) 

• May 8, 1881—The astronomer Williams records 
nearly 1000 bright streaks and “light spots” in the Sea 
of Crisis, the very same spot where astronomers in the 
fifties reported seeing a huge bridgelike structure sud¬ 
denly appear. On March 26, 1882, the entire area of 
the Sea of Crisis was “one mass of lights, streaks and 
spots.” Other astronomers like Madler noted bright 
spots in the Mare Crisium area in May and October 
1865. They appeared, moved about, and disappeared. 
Jessup concludes: “Such evanescent spots are puzzling 
unless we assume controlled activity of some kind.” 

• March 21, 1877—Mr. C. Barrett saw “the interior 
of the crater Proculus entirely lighted.” ( The English 
Mechanic , Vol. 25, p. 89.) This same volume de¬ 
scribes an unusual sighting by Frank Dennett of a 
“point of light shining out of the darkness which filled 
the crater Bessel” and “a bright conical peak, sur¬ 
rounded by a circle of flat needle points clustering 
close to it.” (April 19, 1877.) 


And on and on go the myriad Moon lights. Jessup, an ex¬ 
pert astronomer able to distinguish natural features from 
artificial objects, notes that some of these sightings indicate 
intelligent control. For instance, sometimes the lights ex¬ 
hibit “a brilliant glow . . . accompanied by flashes of sin¬ 
gular brightness.” Often it fades, often it moves about, 
sometimes appearing and reappearing. “Clearly, an indica¬ 
tion that some intelligently operated mechanism was pro¬ 
ducing these lights,” concludes Jessup. 

Also, Jessup notes that these lights are often seen in cer¬ 
tain key areas of the Moon—at least key in the light of 
where our astronauts went. Jessup observes that many 
sightings took place in the Sea of Tranquility, where our 
first astronauts were sent. “Well documented reports that 
Mare Tranquillitas at times of the full moon is sometimes 
covered with small bright specks of points.” 

We wonder, did knowledge of this influence NASA’s 
decision to select this area for our first exploratory efforts? 
Remember, this is also the area where strange artificial¬ 
looking obelisklike structures were photographed. 

The sightings of strange lights and lunar “events” that 
Jessup recounts come from the most experienced and ex¬ 
pert professional astronomers as well as amateurs. The 
University of Michigan astronomer points out that many 
sightings of Sir William Herschel, whom he calls “the un¬ 
impeachable authority,” note that he saw “some 150 very 
luminous spots scattered over the surface of the Moon 
during the total eclipse of October 22, 1790,” alone. 

But there are more definite and dramatic sightings which 
Jessup cites to prove this UFO thesis. Perhaps the most 
shocking is the sighting reported by the well-known astrono¬ 
mer Schroeter (1760). While watching the crater Cleo- 
medes one night, Schroeter was surprised to see what ap¬ 
peared to be “a swirl of dust or vapor and a crater formed 
before his telescope.” 

Jessup believes that what Schroeter was witnessing was 
definitely the landing or taking off of a UFO! 

But is such a radical explanation necessary? Could not 
this have been a volcanic eruption that Schroeter was 
watching? Some scientists thought it was. But, notes Jes¬ 
sup: “Bear in mind that in Schroeter’s day it was almost 
universally thought that all lunar craters were of volcanic 


origin; meteorites could not yet be accepted as objects ar¬ 
riving from space much less a UFO. Schroeter could be 
pardoned for not assuming that he had seen a meteor strike 
the Moon. Yes, the ‘eddying’ must have been the dust 
created, agitated and blown aloft by the meteoric impact, 
or by the sudden movement, of or taking off, of a UFO.” 
Since meteors of that size are extremely rare, and from 
other details of the sighting, it is clear that Jessup considers 
it to be a UFO. ( The Expanding Case for the UFO.) 

This was not the only instance that Jessup believes an 
astronomer might have seen a UFO take off. On November 
20, 1878, the American astronomer Hammes saw an “up- 
rush of something” which he reported to the U.S. Naval 
Observatory. He watched the whole thing for a half an 
hour. Asks Jessup: “Was it indeed, a landing or a blast 
off?” {The Expanding Case for the UFO,) 



One more area of the Moon that Jessup thinks might be 
the center of lunar UFOs is Plato, which he refers to as 
“the essence of the problem of life, intelligence and UFOs 
on the Moon.” 

Jessup catalogues many of the sightings in this area. 
Literally thousands of strange lights and happenings here 
alone indicate the Moon is occupied. In April 1781 no 
fewer than 1600 observations of strange lights were made 
here alone.* These lights often appeared in groups, some¬ 
times even in what astronomers described as “geometrical 
arrangements.” Many astronomers were puzzled by them, 
unable to offer the faintest lucid explanation. Jessup claims 
it is clear what they are—UFOs. 

Jessup continued to examine the vast library of lunar 
“events” that clearly indicate life and activity on our 
companion world. They are too numerous to even men¬ 
tion in this already long chapter. Later we shall consider 

* Birt, an English astronomer, deposited at the Royal Astronomical 
Society accounts of over 1500 sightings of lights, moving objects, 
and changes in light intensity on and around the crater Plato. Most 
of these took place in what Jessup calls “the Incredible Decade” 
of the 1870s. 


some of the more startling “happenings” and developments 
on the Moon which the astronomer Jessup clearly considers 
evidence that the Moon is occupied in our present time. 
Suffice for now to give you Jessup’s startling conclusion 
concerning our satellite: 

Reports of lunar activity which lay buried in the 
archives of the nineteenth century astronomical litera¬ 
ture are now vibrating with new meaning ... I believe 
the discovery of life and intelligence in the environ¬ 
ment of the earth-moon binary system is of as great 
ultimate importance to man as photographing the new 
galaxies, millions of light years away. I believe that 
the discovery, and our consequent awareness of this 
space intelligence, is of vastly greater and more im¬ 
mediate importance to us. It has the effect of putting 
us into a new world. Once this new world is estab¬ 
lished contemporary science will doubtless forget its 
opposition and claim credit for a new intellectual out¬ 

Little did Jessup, as great an astronomer as he was, 
realize (at least to our knowledge) what a fantastic new 
world lay hidden within the Moon. But as we shall see— 
and this is the major thrust of this work—the overwhelm¬ 
ing evidence is that spaceships from beyond our planet and 
probably from beyond our solar system are not just using 
our Moon as a base of operations, but the Moon itself 
appears to be a vast hollow spaceship! 

Some experts believe that in a few years perhaps many 
lights will be seen on the Moon as man begins to develop 
and colonize his new lunar world. Arthur Clarke observes 
in his book The Promise of Space (Harper & Row, 1968): 
“It is strange to think that in a few more years any amateur 
astronomer with a good telescope will be able to see the 
lights of the first expeditions, shining where no stars could 
ever be, within the arms of the crescent Moon.” 

We have seen that they are already there—and have been 
for several centuries! Through our Apollo flights, Clarke’s 
prediction in a sense has come to pass. The question we 
should now ask is: Was man alone when he was on the 


The matter is urgent , They 9 re no joking matter . They 
may well be ships from outer space . 

— Dr. James McDonald 

Professor of Meteorology, University of Arizona 



In the past few decades—and some researchers insist 
for many centuries—strange flying objects have been 
sighted in the skies of Earth. Unidentified Flying Objects 
have been reported over practically every country and con¬ 
tinent of our planet—and in practically every era of his¬ 
tory. Unquestionably, they have- been seen in greater num¬ 
bers in the last few years, and have created a controversy 
that has often led to heated debate not only among scien¬ 
tists but among people in every walk of life. 

Since the 1950s brought flurries of Unidentified Flying 
Objects, many skeptics who once were sure that flying 
saucers did not exist have suddenly changed camps—per¬ 
haps none more dramatically than Dr. J. Allen Hynek, 
head of Northwestern University’s Astronomy Department 
and of the Center for UFO Studies. 

When Dr. Hynek (then director of Ohio State’s Mc¬ 
Millan Observatory) was first asked by the U.S. Air Force 
to help them investigate UFOs, he was a complete skeptic: 

“Oh, hell, that’s all bunk,” he remembers telling the Air 
Force officers who approached him. 

But now Dr. Hynek has done a complete switch. Hynek 
the skeptic has become Hynek the believer. He has changed 
his mind about UFOs. 

Hynek sums it up this way: “I challenge anyone to ex¬ 
plain all the UFO reports in a rational manner.” 

Hynek points out that though most of the reports that 
something strange has been seen in the skies of Earth turn 


out upon investigation to be mistakes, "about 20 per cent 
of the reports are unexplainable.” He insists that "about 
one in every five . , . come from highly credible sources 
and do not submit to rational explanations in our frame¬ 

Hynek points out that, contrary to the popular notion 
that unexplainable sightings are few and far between, the 
dean of UFO researchers, addressing the Mutual UFO 
Network (a solid UFO group made up of scientists, col¬ 
lege professors, educators, engineers, and people from 
many highly respected walks of life), told them: 

"A paradoxical situation exists in the whole UFO prob¬ 
lem area: we have too many sightings, not too few. Yet we 
are far from a solution. We are, frankly, embarrassed by 
our riches.” 

Hundreds of solid UFO reports come in every year—as 
many as half a dozen or more a day. And that presents a 
very difficult problem. 

For the haunting question of our time is, where do all 
these Unidentified Flying Objects come from? Most in¬ 
vestigators and UFO enthusiasts are convinced that they are 
really spacecraft carrying visitors from another planet (or 
planets) outside our solar system. 

"That’s the easiest interpretation,” admits Hynek, “one 
that is in keeping with our level of technological develop¬ 
ment. But there are too damned many reports—there’s an 
embarrassment of riches.” 

Hynek claims “there is an even deeper and more sin¬ 
ister embarassment of our riches, and that is what they 
imply about the origin of UFOs. While I, at least, do not 
feel quite ready to theorize about the ultimate origins of 
UFOs, the implication of the great number of reports per 
year is quite clear, and any theory of UFOs will have to 
explain their abundance. To our earth-bound minds, one 
or two Apollo missions per year is something we can under¬ 
stand; two or three Apollo missions per day would be quite 
another thing! Consider too that the nearest star to us is 
more than one hundred million times farther than the moon 
—well, I hardly need explain further!” {MUFON *Sym¬ 
posium, 1973, p. 63.) 

Admittedly, the problem of the vast dimensions of space 


is just too great to allow conservative, orthodox scientists 
to think that so many spaceships (if they are that) are 
traveling here from faraway planets and star systems. 

Dr. Carl Sagan, who thinks along these lines, gave the 
classic objection to UFOs on a CBS television program. 
Sagan, an astronomer from Cornell University who, iron¬ 
ically, believes that extraterrestrial spaceships may have 
landed on Earth thousands of years ago (as many as ten 
thousand times in our long history, speculates Sagan), 
nevertheless denies that there could be any visitors from 
space in modern skies. Sagan summed up his case with this 
tricky analogy in a radio interview: 

“If you would believe, as the flying saucer cultists would 
have us believe, that the majority of saucer reports are 
due to their [extraterrestrial] visitations, then you have a 
very strange situation. That means that several spaceships 
are coming to the Earth over interstellar distances every 
day, as if all the anthropologists in the world were to con¬ 
verge on one of the Andaman Islands in the Indian Ocean 
because they had just invented the fish net or something.” 
(Daniel Cohen, Myths of the Space Age.) 

Admittedly, it is hard to conceive how spacecraft by the 
hundreds and even the thousands are coming to our planet 
from other far-flung star systems. Theories abound that 
they may be from bases inside our Earth, even under the 
oceans. A few even believe they may be coming from Mars. 

There is another area which was once considered by 
many major UFO researchers as the most likely base for 
UFOs—and this is our Moon. Even Dr. Carl Sagan in his 
younger and less conservative days theorized that UFOs 
could possibly be based on the Moon—on the far side, 
which Earthlings up to that time had never seen. 


Another UFO researcher, Major Donald Keyhoe, whose 
recent book Aliens from Space (Doubleday, 1973) has 
again placed him among our foremost UFO writers and re¬ 
searchers, once was quite convinced that extraterrestrial 
astronauts came from our Moon. He asserted in his book 


The Flying Saucer Conspiracy: “All the evidence suggested 
not only the existence of a Moon base, but that operations 
by an intelligent race have already begun. If so, who could 
the creatures be? Were they from other planets or did they 
originate on the Moon?” 

It was with anxious expectation then that many UFO 
enthusiasts watched our Apollo flights to the Moon. Various 
verified reports had come back that our Mercury and Gem¬ 
ini astronauts (as well as various Soviet astronauts) had 
seen UFOs around the Earth on their journeys into outer 
space. In fact, Dr. Garry Henderson, one of America’s top 
research scientists, claims that “all our astronauts have 
seen these objects [UFOs] but have been ordered not to dis¬ 
cuss their sightings with anyone.” He also maintains that 
NASA has actual photos of these craft, taken at close 
range by still and movie cameras.” 

We do know that NASA has admitted that a few astro¬ 
nauts have indeed seen and even photographed unexplain¬ 
able objects in outer space. The notorious Condon Report: 
Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects (Bantam, 
1969), which attempted to whitewash all UFOs out of the 
skies of Earth, considered and weighed reports of UFO 
sightings on Gemini 4, 7, 9, and 11. Interestingly, Chapter 
6 of that study includes detailed descriptions of these four 
separate sightings by orbiting astronauts, which the Condon 
report was unable to explain, except perhaps the sighting of 
Gemini 11. (See Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon,) 

That chapter was done by Dr. Franklin Roach arid was 
one of the few areas of open-minded consideration given to 
the entire UFO problem researched by the study. 

Stanton Friedman, nuclear physicist and space scientist 
now devoting full time to the problem of UFOs, in his 
book UFOs—Myth and Mystery states: “This chapter by 
Dr. Franklin Roach is one of the better chapters of the 
Condon report, though Condon’s summary fails to give 
adequate attention to these observations. In fact, frankly 
they are dismissed as ‘unexplainable/ ” 



Of course, this is not to say that the Condon Report 
allows even the possibility that flying saucers exist. This 
study, sponsored by the U.S. Government and Air Force 
and approved by the National Academy of Sciences, is 
condemned by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, an astronomical con¬ 
sultant on Project Blue Book, the official Air Force in¬ 
vestigation of UFO reports. Twenty years of experience 
gradually turned this highly respected investigator from a 
skeptic into a believer in the reality of UFOs. 

Hynek objected with stinging criticism to the unscientific 
approach of the Condon Report . He became convinced 
that UFOs did exist, although what they were he admitted 
he could not say. Dr. Bruce C. Murray, expert in planetary 
sciences at California Institute of Technology, reviewing 
Hynek’s work The UFO Experience (Henry Regnery, 
1972), agrees that the Condon Report seems to reflect 
more a “desire to make the UFO problem vanish altogether 
from scientific jurisdiction than a thoughtful attempt to 
isolate possible genuinely new empirical observations.” 

He adds: “Thus Hynek not only defends UFO’s but 
necessarily attacks the scientific establishment that has writ¬ 
ten them off. Can our modern scientific institutions be as 
limited as their predecessors were when scientific authority 
refused to acknowledge the reality of meteorites, hypnosis, 
continental drift, germs, Troy, Atlantis, and Pleistocene 
Man?” (Science , August 25, 1972.) 


As head of the Center for UFO Studies, a clearinghouse 
for UFO reports from all over the world, Dr. Hynek has 
collected thousands of reports not only of strange lights in 
the skies but of objects seen on radar as well as by com¬ 
petent witnesses, and, even more amazingly, of encounters 
with spacecraft and their occupants at close range (within 
20 to 500 feet) and with “humanoid figures reportedly 
observed as well.” Hynek calls these “close encounters of 
the third kind.” Yet Dr. Murray, who is an objective 
reporter, criticizes Hynek despite all his expertise, for 
even the leading UFO scientist in the country “obviously 
feels uncomfortable” about including cases of Close-En- 


counters of the Third Kind* because of whaf Murray calls 
“the little green men” implications. Yet Murray. maintains 
correctly these should not be ruled out just because they are 

Still Hynek deserves a world of credit for doing just that. 
He has become so impressed over the years with the evi¬ 
dence that he makes a plea that scientists “set aside [UFOs] 
bizarre aspects” and investigate them objectively, “for 
sufficient scientific respectability for the UFO subject to 
permit modest federal research funds to be awarded to it 
and new data to be gathered without fear of ridicule.” 
(The UFO Experience.) 

This is the very same plea we make in regard to the 
mystery world that circles our Earth—that serious con¬ 
sideration not only be given to the possibility that it is the 
source of many of the UFOs visiting Earth skies but that a 
serious examination of the evidence that it may be a huge, 
hollo wed-out orb converted from a natural planetoid into 
a kind of spacecraft and “driven” from an unknown region 
of the Universe into orbit around our planet, be under¬ 

Admittedly, this theory is so bizarre that the natural 
reaction may be to at first consider it preposterous. But it is 
possible even though our own earthbound minds might find 
it at first not plausible or even feasible. We ourselves re¬ 
acted this way and it was not until the overwhelming moun¬ 
tain of evidence broke our shell of skepticism that we began 
to consider it seriously. We feel along with Hynek that this 
theory too should be given serious scrutiny by the scientific 
community who should undertake an analysis of the data 
and evidence. Because if it is true that our Moon is really 
a spacecraft—a hollow world—then this has got to be the 
most important discovery in the history of humanity. Its im¬ 
plications are staggering. 

For it is not enough to determine whether or not UFOs 

* Close Encounters of the First Kind are those UFO sightings made 
at close range (less than five hundred feet) where there is no contact 
or interaction of any kind. 

Close Encounters of the Second Kind occur when a UFO is not only 
sighted at close range but where it leaves a visible record of its 
visit, such as chemical changes in the ground over which it hovered 
or on which it landed. 


really exist, but also to determine their source or at least 
their nearest base of operation. As we have seen and shall 
continue to see throughout this book the evidence seems to 
point to the Moon as their point of origin. Indeed, our 
astronauts on their way to the Moon and while on the 
Moon encountered UFOs. Such reports can be verified 
through the logs of astronaut-Mission control conversations. 

Some additional reports come from alleged accounts, 
which are unfortunately not verified. Let us first take a 
look at a few of these. 


In addition to the “unexplainable” flying objects sighted 
by our Gemini astronauts, which even the government- 
sponsored Condon Report could not reasonably explain, a 
number of other strange reports have come to light. 
The first trip to the Moon was made by Apollo 8 astronauts 
Frank Borman, James Lovell, -and William Anders in 
December 1968. As the Apollo crew approached the Moon 
(December 24, 1968), where they were to begin checking 
out prospective landing sites, they ran into something un¬ 
expected. After going into the orbit and traveling to the 
far side of the Moon, the Apollo 8 astronauts sighted a 
huge extraterrestrial object of some kind, which they man¬ 
aged to photograph. They estimated the size of this unusual 
object—whatever it was—to be about 10 square miles! 

On the next orbit they peered all around with anxious 
eyes, trying to spot it again. But, strangely, the huge object 
had disappeared. Where could such a vast thing have gone 
so suddenly? What is even stranger, subsequent photos of 
the site where they saw it showed not a shred of evidence 
that anything had landed there recently. Could it have 
disappeared inside the Moon, to an underground base in a 
hollow portion of the lunar orb? No one knows. 

Speculation ran rampant as to what it could have been: 
a lunar space station of some kind set up by alien beings 
from inside the Moon? Or was it a .UFO vehicle of some 
kind—an extraterrestrial spacecraft merely checking out 
our Apollo mission to the Moon? 


To this day no one has given an adequate explanation 
of this alleged sighting. And no one knows where the object 
came from or disappeared to. It remains totally unex¬ 
plained. An absolute mystery. 


The next trip back to the Moon was Apollo 10, and here 
again UFOs made their appearance. On this mission astro¬ 
nauts Eugene Cernan, Thomas Stafford, and John Young 
were to try out the lunar landing vehicle in lunar skies for 
the first time. They were to duplicate every maneuver that 
the first manned landing mission to the Moon would carry 
out, except, of course, the actual landing itself. Their object 
was, as one astronaut put it, to “snoop” around the Moon, 
trying out the Lunar Excursion Module (or LEM) and at 
the same time looking over four prospective landing sites 
for the Apollo 11 landing mission. Because of this, the 
astronauts dubbed the lunar landing module Snoopy , the 
command module they naturally nicknamed Charlie Brown . 

Charlie Brown went into orbit around the Moon on May 
22, and Snoopy soon was flying for the first time in lunar 
skies, descending to within 50,000 feet of the Moon’s sur¬ 
face, the closest any humans up to that time had been to 
the Moon. As Snoopy dipped to within 4.5 miles of the 
Moon’s surface, suddenly a UFO rose vertically directly 
from below to greet them. The astronauts of Apollo 10 
allegedly caught a glimpse of this brief encounter with a 
lunar UFO and, moreover, captured it on 16-mm motion 
picture film. They also took a number of still photos of this 
unpublicized sighting. 


In our book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon we cata¬ 
loged in two chapters various sightings of UFOs from 
Project Mercury and Gemini missions through the Apollo 
flights. More importantly, we published official transcripts 
taken from NASA Mission Control-astronaut conversations 


covering the various sightings of UFOs. These included the 
dramatic sightings made by astronauts Neil Armstrong and 
Edwin Aldrin, Jr., the first men on the Moon, along with 
their trip mate Michael Collins, command module pilot. 

En route to the Moon on their very first day in space, 
the crew of the Columbia (the Apollo 11 command mod¬ 
ule) sighted a strange object hovering high above Earth. 
They managed to take films of this “bogey,” as the astro¬ 
nauts termed Unidentified Flying Objects. In our first book 
on moon mysteries we included a debriefing-session made 
with the Apollo 11 astronauts, who discussed this strange 
sighting. Yet to this day NASA officially insists that no 
Apollo astronaut ever sighted a UFO. 


This was just the beginning of an entire series of strange 
sightings for Apollo 11. 

At 6:00 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time on Earth) on July 
19, 1969—the day before the-history-making lunar landing 
—astronaut Edwin Aldrin, Jr., who had just entered the 
Eagle (lunar landing craft) for final testing of all the craft’s 
systems, was doing some last-minute filming of the Moon’s 
surface with a 16-mm motion picture camera, checking for 
possible landing hazards and giving scientists and space 
officials back on Earth additional lunar-surface information, 
when suddenly two UFOs came into view. 

One appeared to be larger and brighter than the other. 
Both were traveling in vertical position in respect to the 
Apollo spacecraft, which now was in orbit around the 
Moon. They were moving at a fairly fast clip, both ob¬ 
jects moving now horizontally to the center of the camera’s 

Suddenly, both “bogeys” reversed their direction, retrac¬ 
ing their path through the Moon’s skies until they disap¬ 
peared to the left of the astronauts’ field of vision. 

Seconds later, the mysterious objects reappeared. This 
time they were flying above the Apollo 11 spacecraft, and 
began slowly descending toward it. -Aldrin turned his 
camera 90 degrees, to catch them in his lenses, and, strange- 


ly, the two UFOs seemed to hover and come to halt for a 
moment—almost as if they were permitting the astronauts 
to film them. 

Buzz Aldrin, veteran of the Gemini 12 mission, during 
which he sighted four UFOs, ground away with his camera, 
taking invaluable (but now secret) footage of the two 
mysterious objects. The two brilliant UFOs continued to 
descend, and suddenly Aldrin noticed a brilliant emission 
extending between the two craft. Robert D. Barry of 20th 
Century UFO Bureau, who commented on these remark¬ 
able sightings, says: “Speculation at the time was that this 
‘trail* was possibly connected to the vehicles’ motational 
systems, possibly even exhaust.” 

As the astronauts watched, dumbfounded, the two 
UFOs, which seemingly had joined together, suddenly 
separated and began to rise vertically at a fast rate, finally 
disappearing from sight. The astronauts reported that upon 
separation, each “bogey” or spacecraft became somewhat 
brighter and seemed “to emit a force field taking the form 
of a blurry ‘halo* around the entire craft.” (Modern People 
Press UFO Report , p. 9.) 

This was not the end of the strange sightings, since a 
little while later one of these circular craft came back into 
camera view, only to quickly disappear from lens range. 
It is reported that “during this sighting, 10 other egg- 
shaped objects were seen flying in the foreground. of the 
camera’s view.” 

As Robert Barry puts it: “Naturally, NASA did not 
release these photos to the general public, taking great 
pains to edit any such mysterious craft from the final stills 
which were released to major newspapers and magazines 
around the country.” (Modern People Press UFO Report .) 

But this enterprising researcher managed to get them and 
make them public, thereby doing a service to everyone— 
for the American taxpayers, who footed the entire bill for 
the multi-billion-dollar Apollo flights, deserve no less. 

These are the major sightings made by our Apollo 11 
astronauts. In addition, there are two unauthenticated re¬ 
ports of sightings by this same astronaut team as they made 
their way to and from the Moon. One was reported by 
Otto Binder, former NASA researcher and writer, who 


claimed that certain sources with their own VHF receiving 
facilities that bypassed NASA broadcast outlets overheard 
a startling astronaut conversation. Apparently, as Aldrin 
and Armstrong were making their rounds on the Moon, 
collecting lunar samples, Armstrong exclaimed, “What was 
it? What the hell was it? That’s all I want to know.” 

Mission Control, alarmed at what was taking place, 
responded: “What’s there? . . . (garble) Mission Control 
calling Apollo 11... Apollo 11: These babies were huge, 
sir . . . enormous . . . Oh, God you wouldn’t believe itl 
I’m telling you there are other spacecraft out there . . . 
lined up on the far side of the crater edge . . . they’re on 
the moon watching us . . (Saga's UFO Special , III.) 

Binder says NASA officials made sure that these words 
never reached the public. The broadcast, on a five-second 
delay, like all Apollo broadcasts, was censored. 

The other unauthenticated report of a startling UFO 
sighting by our Apollo 11 astronauts on the Moon comes 
from Modern People Press UFO Report , which in an article 
entitled “Unexplained Lunar Mysteries Point to Intelligent 
‘Moon Men,’ ” said that a national newspaper carried the 
sensational story that as the crew approached the Moon for 
a landing they could see a “space fleet” lined up on the 
surface of the Moon! This sighting has never been verified, 
but we give it to you for what it is worth: 

“APOLLO 11 ASTRONAUTS: ‘You can see them lined 
up in ranks on the crater’s edge! It looks as if someone 
got here before us.* 

“Mission Control then broke in and ordered the astro¬ 
nauts to film the objects. Those films have never been re¬ 
leased and the story itself has never been confirmed.” 

Here is a brief summary of the highlights of the other 
UFO sightings made by our various astronauts: 

• Apollo 12—Sighted three UFOs halfway to the 
Moon. Again the astronauts reported hearing various 
noises—whistles, fire-engine sounds, beeps—interfer¬ 
ing with their communications to Mission Control. On 
the return trip the astronauts reported seeing another 
UFO just before splashdown in the Pacific (over 

_ *i- 



• Apollo 15—A mysterious “flying object” flashed 
across the lunar skies briefly, just missing, it is claimed, 
astronauts David Scott and James Irwin. 

• Apollo 16—Astronaut Thomas Mattingly, orbiting 
in the command module above the Moon, saw a 
“light” flashing across the Moon’s skies. It disappeared 
in a few seconds beyond the lunar horizon. Dr. Farouk 
El Baz, former NASA scientist, claims that such lights 
as this seen by our astronauts “must remain in the 
category of UFOs. ... It is certain [they] were not 
any spacecraft we know of because it was moving too 
fast. No Russian or American spacecraft can move 
that fast, either on or near the Moon.” (Saga, April 

• Apollo 17—Two more UFOs sighted by our astro¬ 
nauts, this time by Ron Evans and Harrison Schmitt, 
the only full-fledged scientist sent to the Moon. 

This summary of our many UFO sightings made around 
the Moon by our astronauts indicates that nearly every 
Apollo astronaut and mission encountered UFOs on or 
around the Moon. Why didn’t the public hear of such 
sightings during the well-publicized and media-carried 
Apollo trips? No on-the-spot reports came through. Then 
why was there such a flurry of alleged reports later? 

Stanton Friedman, who spent many years working for 
the U.S. Space Agency, points out: “It should be noted that 
the Apollo flights, about which there have been rumors 
concerning UFOs, employ. a different approach to com¬ 
munications between the astronauts and the ground. The 
radio signals are sent directly back to Houston and then 
rebroadcast with Houston having the option of deleting 
whatever they choose to delete with essentially no one out¬ 
side NASA able to monitor the broadcasts. During the 
earlier Gemini and Mercury flights the talk was ‘in the 
open'—readily monitored by ham equipment.” (UFOs — 
Myth and Mystery .) 

Also, an additional censoring system was the use of a 
code system and private channels to which the astronauts 
and Mission Control could switch at a moment’s notice. 
In our book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon we included 


actual Mission Control-astronaut conversations of the 
sightings of UFOs. In these transcripts Mission Control 
from time to time gave orders to the astronauts in some 
unusual terms, seemingly whenever an unusual sighting was 
taking place, directing them to “Go to Whiskey Whiskey” 
or “Barbara Barbara” or “Bravo Bravo” or “Kilo Kilo.” 

One NASA scientist who has left the space agency ad¬ 
mitted that private channels were set up by NASA and used 
during these missions and that these strange terms could 
have been code names for switching to such channels. 

Interestingly, there is an intercontinental ballistic missile 
base in Montana by the name of Kilo Kilo. Could NASA 
have used this base’s radio equipment to filter out through 
this prearranged private channel anything NASA did not 
want the public to know? Shockingly, Whiskey Whiskey, 
Barbara Barbara, and Bravo Bravo are also bases in the 

To this day NASA has not revealed officially that our 
Apollo astronauts did actually see UFOs while in outer 
space. Stanton Friedman, widely known scientist who now 
works full-time investigating UFOs, observes: “I did once 
spend over two hours discussing UFOs with one of the 
Apollo astronauts who was extremely interested in what I 
had to say, bought four hard-to-get UFO documents but 
would give me no information at all—not even that which 
turned up in the Condon report—about astronaut sight¬ 

Friedman, longtime space scientist himself, then points 
out why our astronauts have remained so mum; 

For those who have never worked on classified pro¬ 
grams I should stress that the classification guides for 
such programs are normally also classified so it is, 
practically speaking, impossible to even determine 
what fraction of the astronauts’ observations of the 
earth and space is classified. Contrary to some com¬ 
ments I have heard much NASA data is secret. The 
penalties for breaking security are extremely rigorous 
and it is often necessary to lie as a cover story. I 
believe I can guarantee as a result of' working under 
security for 15 years that the government and its em¬ 
ployees can indeed keep secrets—despite the fact that 


some secrets have been inadvertently revealed. ( UFOs 
—Myth and Mystery , p. 7.) 

Although our astronauts have kept a tight lid on UFO 
secrets, it is interesting to note that several have openly 
expressed themselves privately on the subject, stating their 
conviction that UFOs do indeed exist. 

• Astronaut John Young, the ninth man to set foot on 
the Moon, speaking on the existence of UFOs: 

“If you bet against it you'd be betting against an al¬ 
most sure thing ..." 

• Astronaut Edward Mitchell, the sixth man to set 
foot on the Moon, commenting on UFOs: 

“The only question that remains is, where do they 
come from?” 

• Astronaut Eugene Cernan: 

“I believe UFOs belong to someone else and that 
they are from some other civilization.” 


Despite all the revelations to the contrary, NASA offi¬ 
cials still adamantly deny that our Apollo astronauts saw 
any UFOs in space. Gordon L. Harris, NASA official at 
the Kennedy Space Center, was quoted recently as stating 
that “no official information which would in any way sub¬ 
stantiate the presence of UFOs in space—including the 
post-mission reports of the Apollo astronauts—is being 
withheld from the public.” ( Modern People Press UFO 
Report , p. 10.) 

But Robert D. Barry of the 20th Century UFO Bureau 
points out that Donald L,. Zyistra, chief of NASA's Public 
Information Branch in Washington, D.C., did make this 
astounding statement: “While NASA has no record of UFO 
sightings as such, during the Apollo manned-flight missions 
there were sightings from the spacecraft which our astro¬ 
nauts were unable to explain.” 


Flying objects which must be classified as “unexplain¬ 
able” fit precisely the definition of UFOs—they are UFOs! 


An even more startling revelation comes from Dr. James 
Harder, an engineering professor at the University of 
California, who told a university symposium that several 
Apollo flights were followed by UFOs. In a story carried 
by United Press Wire Service, Dr. Harder said he discov¬ 
ered the Apollo-UFO incidents while reviewing tape-re¬ 
corded conversations between our lunar spacecraft and 
NASA’s Houston space control. 

According to Dr. Harder, the taped conversations (pub¬ 
lished in Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon) clearly show 
that the Apollo 11 spacecraft was followed halfway to the 
Moon and a UFO definitely trailed Apollo 12 on three 
orbits around the Moon. Dr. Harder confronted NASA 
authorities with these facts, and they shockingly admitted 
privately to him that “they had suppressed the UFO inci¬ 
dents for fear of public panic.” 

Harder also claims that a member of the Apollo 12 
space team (whom he declines to identify) admitted to him 
that the mission had spotted UFOs. 

The University of California professor points out that 
the official explanation—^that the objects were part of the 
spacecraft trailing behind—was not supported by the speed 
observed on NASA Earth-based instruments. 

This in general has become the commonplace explana¬ 
tion for all UFOs that were seen by astronauts in outer 
space: They were (the public is told) merely debris from 
the spacecraft or the rocket missile system. 

And so it is not surprising that when astronaut Frank 
Borman was privately asked by an interested airline pilot 
if he had indeed seen UFOs in space, as reported, Borman 
denied that they were actually Unidentified Flying Ob¬ 
jects. The ex-astronaut fell back on that old NASA song: 
They were fragments from the launching vehicle. 

Yet even the Condon Report , which tries so hard to latch 


on to any answer to explain away all UFOs, does candidly 
admit “this is impossible if they were travelling in a polar 
orbit as they appeared to the astronauts to be doing.” 
Thus, even this government-backed study of unidentified 
flying objects rejects the NASA explanation and finally 
lists the' UFO sighting of Gemini 7 as “unexplainable.” 
{Condon Report , pp. 207-208.) 

Interestingly, the photos that astronauts Borman and 
Lovell took of the mysterious objects show clearly they 
were not space debris. One picture, in fact, shows a bright, 
shining UFO, and another, surprisingly, three glowing 


The proof that there is actually a cover-up comes from 
Robert D. Barry of the 20th Century UFO Bureau, who 
claims that a classified NASA document (KMI-8610.4) 
that he managed to get hold of actually orders astronauts 
that “sightings of objects not related to space vehicles” 
(UFOS) had to be reported as pieces of regular NASA 

This same source also insists that a top NASA official 
actually stated: “Every manned mission we have sent to 
the Moon has been under surveillance by UFOs.” ( Modern 
People Press UFO Report , p. 6.) 

A study of the records and a glance at the photos will 
convince even the most diehard skeptic that this is exactly 
what happened when man went to the Moon. 


One final question might be haunting you: How is it 
possible that so many sightings were seen on the Moon 
when no bases were spotted on the lunar exterior? While 
it is true that there are no known bases (some observers be¬ 
lieve that several hundred strange domes that cover certain 
craters on the Moon may be just that), it is quite possible 


that lunar bases exist underground . Admittedly, again this 
is only theory. 

However, this theory—that the Moon might internally 
harbor an entire series of bases for UFOs—is not without 
evidence. As we have seen, the Moon certainly has been 
the center of a lot of UFO activity. Thousands of strange 
lights, “happenings,” and even structural changes have been 
observed, as documented by leading astronomers and scien¬ 
tific experts the world over. Some scientists like H. P. Wil¬ 
kins believe there is substantial evidence that the Moon 
might have extensive hollows. These, if they exist, obviously 
could harbor such alien beings and their bases. 

In fact, according to a startling new theory of two 
Soviet scientists, the Moon may not only have hollow 
areas internally but itself be hollow! These two bold theo¬ 
rists have compiled some impressive (though not conclu¬ 
sive) evidence that our Moon has also an inner shell or 
“hull” of metal, and they insist that there is evidence of ar¬ 
tificial construction existing inside the Moon! Mikhail Vasin 
and Alexander Shcherbakov’s mind-blowing theory is the 
major theme of this book and-shall be examined and scruti¬ 
nized in great detail. 

Strangely enough, according to George Leonard, an ama¬ 
teur astronomer and author of the mind-boggling book 
Somebody Else Is On the Moon (McKay, 1976), scientists 
on this side of the Iron Curtain are also arriving at the same 
conclusion—that our Moon is a spaceship! Leonard says 
that a former NASA scientist related this information to 

This pseudonymous ex-NASA researcher, Dr. Sam Witt- 
comb, “heard it [the spaceship theory of the Moon] 
explained by an engineer at the Jet Propulsion Lab [NASA] 
and by a British physicist at Oxford. The theory is that the 
Moon is a vast spaceship, that it was driven to our solar 
system many thousands of years ago after suffering a ter¬ 
rible calamity in space. Its occupants have been engaged 
in a long, slow effort to repair the damage. Machinery is 
seen in several places on the Moon. It is nuclear-powered, 
and will one day be used to drive the Moon out of our 
orbit into space again.” 

The problem with such an unusual theory is that scien- 


tists as well as the general run of people are wholly un¬ 
familiar with such a far-out technological concept. 

Dr. Farouk El Baz, former NASA scientist who trained 
astronauts in geology, makes this profound observation; 
“We may be looking at artifacts from extraterrestrial visi¬ 
tors without recognizing them.” 

Could it be that the biggest such extraterrestrial artifact 
is the very strange world of the Moon itself? 

If compelling evidence can prove that this satellite of 
ours is truly a spaceship, then there is such an extrater¬ 
restrial artifact in our corner of the cosmos; our Moon is 
then in reality a huge UFO that so far has not been recog¬ 
nized for what it is—and a UFO, incidentally, that every¬ 
one can raise his eyes to the heavens and see. 

Furthermore, if it can be proven beyond a shadow of a 
doubt that our Moon is really an alien spacecraft—a huge, 
hollowed-out planetoid—it could be the key, as we have 
seen, to the streams of alien spacecraft that are coming to 
the planet Earth. 

Then the lights of the Moon, which move around, come 
and go, appear and disappear, would make sense. As Dr. 
Maurice Jessup, who figured it out several decades ago 
after a thorough study of strange fights and “happenings” 
that took place on the Moon, concluded: 

“It is no longer necessary to explain the visitors as com¬ 
ing from Mars, Venus or Alpha Centauri; they are a part 
of our own immediate family, a part of the earth-moon 
binary system. They didn’t have to come all those millions 
of miles from anywhere. They’ve been here for thousands 
of years. ...” 

We shall see that compelling evidence can be marshaled 
to prove that they come from our Spaceship Moon. 


I keep telling these geologists to let their imagina¬ 
tions got 

— Dr . Harold Urey, Dean of Moon Scientists 

FOUR __ 


From time immemorial people have gazed into the heavens 
and wondered about the mysterious glowing world revolv¬ 
ing around us. Man has marveled at the Moon’s beauty, 
been mesmerized by her radiance, even made more amorous 
by this “silver ornament of the night,” as one author back 
in the late sixteenth century described her. And even before 
history began, there is considerable evidence that men all 
over our globe worshipped her. Now, in modern times, 
Earthbound man has broken the chains of gravity, to set 
forth from our planet and set foot on this once-unreach- 
able world. 

Many scientists of Earth thought that going to the Moon 
would enable man to divine the secrets of the universe. 
To scientists this alien world—the first that man ever set 
foot upon—would prove to be a cosmic Rosetta Stone that 
would enable mankind to read the records of the cosmos 
and unravel the origins and nature not only of the Moon 
itself but also of our solar system. 

However, instead of shedding light, this longed-for Holy 
Grail of the scientific world turned out to be a cornucopia 
of mysteries. As rock after rock was returned and voyage 
after voyage completed, the results, mulled over and 
studied, merely produced mystery after mystery, puzzle 
after puzzle. Instead of answers, only confusion has been 
spawned. In fact, so much conflicting and perplexing infor¬ 
mation was produced that after the second Apollo mission 
Dr. Louis Walter of NASA’s Space Flight Center con- 



fessed: “In view of this latest data, these guys are really 
staying loose on their feet.” No one wanted to commit him¬ 
self. And that has been the whole story of the Apollo scien¬ 
tific findings so far. 

Despite this, a few bold scientists are hesitantly advanc¬ 
ing theories, none of which is being wholeheartedly ac¬ 
cepted by colleagues. Scientists who for the most part have 
been scrambling over all this information and wrangling 
over its meaning do admit that most of the old theories do 
not jibe with already established facts. In truth, some of 
the answers often seem to be more complicating and con¬ 
tradictory than the now-shattered theories of the past. 

The Moon itself remains a cosmic conundrum that scien¬ 
tists have just not been able to crack. Although the major 
theories have been shattered under the surprising evidence, 
the amazing outcome, as we view it, is that nearly all the 
information and data that we have pored over, nearly all 
NASA’s findings, seems to support the rather bizarre Soviet 
theory that holds that our Moon is not entirely what it 
seems—not completely a natural world. 

Two Soviet scientists, Mikhail Vasin and Alexander 
Shcherbakov, in a Soviet government publication a few 
years ago (July 1970) claimed that our Moon is hollow 
and may well indeed be a spaceship built by some unknown 
alien intelligence from a far-flung star system. * 


These bold scientists tell us: 

It is quite likely that our moon is a very ancient 
spaceship, with an interior that was filled with fuel for 
its engines. . . , The hollow interior should also still 

♦Although a NASA official claimed that the Vasin-Shcherbakov arti¬ 
cle was published in a government scientific journal as a “spoof,” 
adding that “the hollow moon theory was entirely a joke,” the 
author has received letters and material directly from Vasin, who 
has in fact published his latest proofs on the artificial moon theory 
in a book (1976), a copy (in Russian) of which he was good 
enough to send me, and which we received just as this book was 
going to press. 


contain materials and equipment for repair work, 
navigation instruments, observation devices and all 
manner of machinery. 

In other words, the huge spaceship carried every¬ 
thing necessary to serve as a kind of Noah’s Ark of 
intelligent creatures on a voyage through the universe 
thousands of millions of years. 

Who were these highly advanced creatures who 
produced in their mind a spaceship requiring a tech¬ 
nology and vision we haven’t yet even approached? 

The two Soviet scientists refuse to speculate on this ques¬ 
tion. They nevertheless do state: “Perhaps it was even the 
home of a whole civilization of creatures whose original 
home planet could no longer sustain life.” 

Why would two highly respected, orthodox scientists 
from a highly respected science institute propound such a 
preposterous and, in their own words, even “crazy” theory? 
As they themselves confess: 

“Abandoning the traditional paths of ‘common sense,* 
we have plunged into what may at first sight seem to be 
unbridled and irresponsible fantasy. But the more minutely 
we go into all the information gathered by man about the 
moon, the more we are convinced that there is not a single 
fact to rule out our supposition. Not only that, but many 
things so far considered to be lunar enigmas are explain¬ 
able in the light of this new hypothesis.” 

Here are the five major areas of evidence upon which 
these two Soviet theorists formulated and postulated their 
“crackpot” theory*: 



The origin of the Moon remains a puzzle, and all three 
major theories as to where the Moon came from and its 
origin must be rejected. 

The Soviet scientists first of all examine these three major 
theories of the Moon’s origin and reject them all: 

HYPOTHESIS I. The Moon was once a part of the 

* For the complete Soviet “Spaceship Moon” theory and the Soviet 
scientists* position paper, see Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon . 


Earth and broke away from it. 

This has been refuted by the 

HYPOTHESIS II. The Moon was formed indepen¬ 
dently from the same cloud of dust 
and gas as the Earth, and immedi¬ 
ately became the Earth’s natural 

The Soviet researchers reject this, too, not only because of 
the big difference in the specific gravity (density) of the 
two radically different worlds but because analysis of Moon 
rocks indicates that our companion world is “not of the 
same composition as the Earth’s.” 

HYPOTHESIS III. The Moon came into being sep¬ 
arately and, moreover, far from 
the Earth (perhaps even outside 
the solar system). 

This is the so-called capture theory—that the Moon, 
wandering through our solar system, just happened, “by a 
complex interplay of forces ... [to be] brought within a 
geocentric orbit, very close to circular. But a catch of this 
kind is virtually impossible, the Soviet scientists note.” 

Vasin and Shcherbakov conclude: 

“In fact, scientists studying the origin of the Universe 
today have no acceptable theory to explain how the Earth- 
Moon system came into being.” 

This then leads to their own theory: 

“Our hypothesis: The Moon is an artificial Earth satellite 
put into orbit around the Earth by some intelligent beings 
unknown to ourselves.” 


The major thrust of their density argument is that density 
studies of the Moon indicate that the Moon might be hol¬ 
low. If it is, then, as all astronomers agree, it would have 
to have been artificially hollowed out. 

Vasin and Shcherbakov point to the “big difference be¬ 
tween the specific gravity of the Moon (3.33 grammes per 


cubic centimeter) and that of the Earth (5.5 gr.). Such a 
low specific gravity indicates that the Moon could be 



The Soviet scientists insist there is evidence that the 
Moon’s inner and outer shells were in part formed by the 
hand of alien intelligence—that they are in fact at least 
partly of alien “construction.” According to their theory, 
the Moon has two such areas: the outer shell of rock and 
dirt, which they maintain shows clear evidence of rein¬ 
forcement (the so-called seas or maria, which the next 
section will detail), and an inner shell or hull, which they 
estimate to be 20 miles thick. This inner hull served as 
space armor to protect the occupants of this huge spacecraft 
in their journeys through the universe. 


The Soviet researchers are convinced that the flat areas 
or plains regions of the Moon, called seas (maria) because 
once people on Earth thought they were actually covered 
with water, are in reality made up of metallic rock—evi¬ 
dence of an artificial outpouring from the Moon’s interior. 
These dark, level areas, which can easily be seen from Earth 
on a clear night when the Moon is full, are actually loaded 
with dark mineral ores like titanium and iron, along with 
other rare metallic elements. 

Three of these huge dark spots form the so-called Man 
in the Moon: the Sea of Rains, which makes up the right 
eye, the Sea of Serenity, and the Sea of Tranquility, the 
left eye. 

The Soviet “spaceship” theorists point to the strange 
discovery of great amounts of metallic elements in the rock 
samples brought back from these lunar seas—such metallic 
elements as titanium, zirconium, chromium, and the highly 
refractory elements yttrium and beryllium—all of which 
are mechanically strong and resistant to high temperatures. 



Vasin and Shcherbakov point out: 

‘This is the perfect kind of material out of which to 
fashion and reinforce a spacecraft. Such metals were used 
not only in Spaceship Moon’s inner hull but its outside 
exterior shell to withstand the rigors of their long space 

“The metals were chipped from the armor-plate and 
fused with the loosely packed dirt and rocks in the regions 
around where they hit by the super-hot meteorites to form 


One reason Vasin and Shcherbakov suspect that the 
Moon has such inner and outer spaceship shells made out 
of strong metallic elements is simply that although massive 
meteors and even huge asteroids have crashed into the 
Moon by the millions—some of them but a few feet across 
and others over 100 miles in diameter—and although they 
struck like explosive missiles with the force of many tons 
of TNT, they merely dented the outer shell of rock and 
dirt. How come? The Soviet scientists point to a study done 
by a fellow Russian of the expected depth of Moon craters 
created by such fierce impact. Professor Stanyukovich’s 
study concluded that these celestial missiles should have 
penetrated to a depth equal to four to five times their own 
diameter (24-30 miles at least). Yet almost invariably 
Moon craters, even those 100 miles or more across, are a 
mere mile or two deep at most. 

Something underneath the Moon’s layer of rock and dust 
stopped them when they began to penetrate. The metallic 
particles in lunar samples indicate this was a shell of 
metallic rock which the meteors and other heavenly missiles 
crashing into the Moon could not penetrate. 

Another anomaly is that, despite their huge size, many 
lunar craters are convex—not concave, as we would expect 
them to be if huge meteors exploded into mere rock and 


dirt. Again, it was the tough protective shell that prevented 


Strange, unexplainable mass concentrations exist under 
these mystifying maria. These puzzling areas exist in the 
fiat, circular plains regions and were discovered to exert a 
heavier or stronger pull of gravity than the other areas of 
the Moon. 

The reason for this, claim Vasin and Shcherbakov, is 
simply that something must exist there at the bottom of 
these maria that causes this heavier pull: “the stocks and 
the cement-metallic like repair materials still stored beneath 
those regions and the many pieces of heavy repair equip¬ 
ment. The concentration of all this weight under the cir¬ 
cular lunar ‘seas’ would be enough to make the pull of 
gravity greater,” the Soviet scientists speculate. 


These are the five major areas of evidence persuading the 
two Soviet scientists that our Moon might be a spaceship. 

Although this theory is unquestionably intriguing and 
even perhaps to some extent plausible in some respects, the 
evidence the Soviet scientists marshaled in support of it is 
hardly compelling. 

As the two Soviet scientists concluded their own scien¬ 
tific paper in Sputnik: 

We have put forward in this article only a few of 
the reasons—unfortunately the evidence is so far only 
circumstantial—for our hypothesis, which at first 
glance may appear to be crazy. 

A similar “crazy” idea was put forward in 1959 by 
Professor Iosif Shklovsky, an eminent scientist [also 
connected with the Soviet Academy of Sciences], in 
relation to the “Moons” circling around Mars. After 
carefully weighing the evidence he concludes that they 


are both hollow and are therefore artificial satellites, 
[Shklovsky later discarded this theory.] 

We feel that the questions we have raised in connec¬ 
tion with our Moon provide sufficient food for serious 
thought on the matter; the result may be the illumina¬ 
tion of many lunar riddles. 

Now, of course, we have to wait for direct evidence 
to support our idea. Or to refute it. 

Probably there will not be long to wait. 

Five years ago, when a student of mine brought to my 
attention the Sputnik article detailing this “crazy” theory, 
I rejected it offhand as a piece of sheer science fiction. 
Finally I decided the idea would be an intriguing vehicle 
for a science-fiction novel and began to research everything 
we had learned about the Moon from our space program. 
I soon was shocked to find out that all the evidence both 
from American and Soviet lunar programs and explorations 
supported the crazy spaceship theory. 

So what I started to write as science fiction I ended up 
writing as scientific fact. Undoubtedly some people, even 
after reading my first book, Our Mysterious Spaceship 
Moon t still consider it to be just that—science fiction. 

But after years of intensive research I still continue to 
discover facts and evidence that indicate clearly that the 
Soviet scientists are right. After reading this sequel on this 
all-important subject we are convinced you will agree. 

Let us now proceed to devote a chapter to each of the 
five areas of evidence the Soviet theory delineates. Let us 
objectively look at the latest findings garnered from both 
lunar programs and let the scientific evidence fall where it 
may. I think, however, that you will agree with me that, 
surprising though it may be, the evidence in favor of the 
spaceship theory is impressive—enough to warrant serious 
consideration by the scientific community of what has to be 
the most far-out, most science-fictionish theory ever con¬ 
ceived by the mind of man. 

But deep students of life recognize that invariably the 
science-fiction theories of yesteryear have become the sci¬ 
entific facts of today. 

This someday may be the case with this mind-boggling 
and far-reaching theory of Spaceship Moon. 



One asked why men should think there was a world 
in the moon? It was answered because they were 
lunatics . 

— Jest Book 

Now , my suspicion is that the universe is not only 
queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can 
suppose • 

—John B. S . Haldane 

FIVE __ 


Undoubtedly most people when they first hear about this 
theory will think that its authors must have rocks in their 
heads. But such a startling theory should not be auto¬ 
matically rejected just because on the face of it it seems 

Let us illustrate. Consider this seemingly wild theory that 
many NASA scientists strongly believed in before man 
went to the Moon. Would you believe that any scientist 
connected with our Moon program actually believed that 
rocks from our neighboring world existed on Earth before 
our astronauts brought some back here to our planet? 

Dr. Dean Chapman did, and so did many of his outstand¬ 
ing colleagues at NASA. They were convinced “Moon 
rocks” had come to Earth long before the Apollo astronauts 
brought any here. Crazy, you say? 

Chapman could demonstrate quite convincingly that cer¬ 
tain small blobs of black glassy rocks called tektites, which 
are found scattered from Australia to Southeast Asia, actu¬ 
ally splashed to Earth when the great Tycho Crater was 
formed by a gigantic asteroid in recent selenological times. 
Chapman is no amateur but a professional scientist—an 
aeronautical engineer who is an expert in the field of space. 
He helped design the heat shield that protected the Amer¬ 
ican astronauts’ reentry into Earth’s atmosphere on space 

Many other outstanding scientists, including Dr. Gene 
Shoemaker of NASA, agreed with Chapman’s basic theory. 


“The earth is strewn with lunar debris,” claimed Shoe¬ 
maker. A meteorite striking the Moon at tremendous speed 
can hit with such force that it throws Moon rocks and dust 
into outer space, away from the light, one-sixth-gravity pull 
of the Moon. This Moon debris drifted freely through 
space, until our larger Earth swept up these “sprays of 
moon stuff,” as Shoemaker calls it, and they eventually 
landed here to become part of the planet. 

Before our manned lunar program got underway our 
space agency actually made great efforts to find such 
“Moon meteorites.” Dr. Hugh E. Horton of the Manned 
Spacecraft Center in Houston tells a story about this pro¬ 
gram, which was called Project Moon Harvest. One of the 
places they concentrated their search on was the normally 
rock-free agricultural fields of the Midwest. 

One investigator was looking for rocks in these fields 
one day when he was asked by a curious old farmer what 
he was looking for. The scientific researcher answered: 
“WeTe looking for Moon rocks—that’s what you might 
call it.*’ 

The farmer flashed a smile of ridicule and replied: 


“Well, fella, have you looked inside your head lately?” 

Undoubtedly many people will say the same about this 
Soviet spaceship theory—they’ve got rocks in their head, 
Moon rocks! But as we shall see, anyone who closes his 
mind without at least considering the evidence—and there 
is much—will miss perhaps the most significant scientific 
discovery of modern times, if not indeed of all time! 

Admittedly, the author himself was guilty of unwarranted 
skepticism. I was convinced that the manned Apollo trips, 
which our scientists had hoped would solve once and for 
all the riddle of this rock in our skies, would furnish us 
with all the answers. Surprisingly, they turned out to spawn 
only more mysteries. And, shockingly, all these mysteries 
uncovered by NASA scientists and indeed scientists the 
world over are understandable only in terms of the Soviet 
spaceship theory. 

Still, I remained skeptical. Hollowing out and converting 
such a huge planetoid as our Moon into a spaceship that 
could traverse the universe seemed to me beyond the pale 
of believ ability. 



While it is true that the idea of a huge, hollowed-out 
spaceship fashioned by human ingenuity and technology 
into a vast cosmic ark and sent to travel through the uni¬ 
verse is not new among science-fiction writers, the idea 
that any group of intelligent beings could actually restruc¬ 
ture a world the size of the Moon was totally beyond my 

Surprisingly, however, I have learned that our scientists 
have been writing for an amazingly long time about this 
very possibility: someday journeying to the stars in such 
“inside-out” worlds. 

Among the first in our century to come up with such a 
mind-boggling idea was Professor J. D. Bernal, who back in 
the twenties, in his classic work The World, the Flesh and 
the Devil , suggested that entire colonies of human beings 
might one day be hurtling through the universe in such 
giant arks, living in completely enclosed inside-out-type 
worlds on an endless odyssey through space—just as we 
travel on our Spaceship Earth, only not locked to one 
particular star, in endless circuit around our Sun. 

Some imaginative science and science-fiction writers, 
such as Arthur Clarke, are convinced that man’s destiny 
lies out there among the stars, actually believe that someday 
such worlds may become a commonplace reality. 

In fact, a few have even been bold enough to suggest 
that in the distant future more humans will spend their 
existence journeying through the universe in such spaceship 
worlds than have so far sojourned on Spaceship Earth. Hun¬ 
dreds of billions, in their view, will be born, live, love, and 
die in such worlds—more than the total previous human 
population that has existed on Earth. 

Back in the fifties famed science-fiction entrepreneur 
Hugo Gernsback’s intriguing magazine Science Fiction 
Plus: Preview of the Future carried an article (April 1953 
issue) written by a Dr. Leslie Shepherd, scientific advisor 
to the British Interplanetary Society, who projected the 
possibility of fashioning such a thousand-year ark from a 
huge asteroid. Inside such a spaceship world entire gen¬ 
erations of humans would voyage among the stars, “a 


voyage whose end would be seen only by generations yet 


Isaac Asimov, well-known science and science-fiction 
writer, put forward similar ideas in a magazine interview 
about man’s future. (Strange Stories, Amazing Facts.) 
Asimov claimed that it is almost certain that man will 
spread his kind through the galaxy—if we survive the 
critical problems that face our Space Age world. Someday, 
asserts Asimov, we will have to go—in the distant future 
our Sun will become unstable and flare up into a nova. 

“The most practical way, barring new kinds of technical 
advances that are hard to foresee, is to build large ships 
that are self-contained ecologies—small, self-contained 
worlds—and just send them off, not with any special desti¬ 
nation in mind. Every once in a while, one of them will 
come across a world that can be colonized.” 

Asimov even thinks that such worlds will (as we have 
noted) be made out of asteroids. This space optimist be¬ 
lieves that man will eventually colonize millions of worlds 
as he travels throughout the universe in such hollowed-out 
spaceships. He states unequivocally that man will encounter 
other intelligent beings in these endless space odysseys. 


Shockingly, Arthur Clarke believes that he has discovered 
such a spaceship world in our own solar system. In his 
book Voices from the Sky (Harper & Row, 1965) he re¬ 

“Dr. Shklovskii’s stimulating theory [that a moon of 
Mars is hollow] appeals to me because some ten years ago 
I made an identical suggestion concerning the innermost 
moon of Jupiter. In a story called ‘Jupiter V’ I pointed out 
certain peculiarities of this satellite and developed the idea 
that it was a giant spacecraft, which ages ago had entered 
the solar system and then been ‘parked* in orbit around 
Jupiter while its occupants went off in more conveniently 
sized vehicles to colonize the planets.” 

Apparently the Soviet scientists Vasin and Shcherbakov 
are not the only researchers who have suggested such a 
bold theory. Yet despite these claims, personally we found 


their assertion that an alien technology could have hollowed 
out such a huge orb as our Moon was just too incredible 
to believe. So we remained skeptical. 

Then I discovered that our own scientists have conceived 
of building a similar spacecraft for travel to distant stars 
someday. And our space engineers have even formulated 
plans and written books promulgating this idea of futuristic 
interstellar space travel. One of America’s most imaginative 
scientific minds, Dandridge Cole, in his mind-boggling 
book Islands in Space (Chilton Books, 1964; written with 
Donald Cox), suggests that the vast distances and time 
involved in projected star travel could never be accom¬ 
plished through the cumbersome, limited “horse-and- 
buggy” type of vehicle, the rocket ship. 

However, there is a way, Cole suggests, for man some¬ 
day to get to the stars. His plan is to capture a huge 
asteroid or planetoid ranging near Earth and, with the tech¬ 
nology that would be available to us in the near future, 
fashion it into an artificial, hollowed-out world. 

So it is not beyond the pale of possibility, I discovered, 
that some superior and advanced race of alien beings capa¬ 
ble of a greatly advanced technology—obviously vastly su¬ 
perior to any we have at our present stage of evolution— 
would have hollowed out this huge orb and turned it into 
a similar unique inside-out world, then powered their new 
cosmic home, filled with farms and factories, schools and 
homes, and whatever else would be necessary for their own 
peculiar civilization to begin the endless trek through the 
universe. Undoubtedly they fortified the unique world 
spaceship which was to be their home for generation upon 
generation, for—who knows—maybe century upon cen¬ 
tury, even millennium upon millennium. 

Fortified it? Certainly, for the gigantic meteors, asteroids, 
and other celestial missiles which they would undoubtedly 
from time to time encounter as they traveled through space 
could have wrecked and destroyed their unique spaceship 
world. So in their fortified, metallic inner hull, with their 
spaceship filled with the necessary provisions in an enclosed, 
self-cycling, self-sustaining world, they headed their arti¬ 
ficially constructed sphere—which to* all outward eyes 
would appear to be just a huge asteroid—through the track¬ 
less realms of space, on what must certainly have been one 


of the greatest odysseys ever conceived or taken in the 
entire universe! 


If the Soviet spaceship theory is correct (and we shall 
soon see that all the Apollo evidence backs it up), an un¬ 
known intelligent race of beings did precisely this billions 
of years ago. It staggers the mind to believe there existed 
beings capable of such a greatly advanced technology— 
especially that long ago. Obviously, even then, at the outset 
of their journey, they were vastly superior to us today. It 
could be they were forced to create a home for themselves 
when their sun began to die (as all stars must) or their 
planet home was faced for some unknown reason with 
extinction. Such an eventuality would lead us to take a 
similar step. 

How did they accomplish the feat of making a spaceship 
world? The same way, probably, that Cole suggests for our 
own space program. They undoubtedly captured this huge 
planetoid (or perhaps one circled their planet already). 
Then they proceeded, with a technology that we as yet 
cannot divine, to hollow out this huge orb and transform 
it internally into a unique inside-out world, perhaps some¬ 
thing like what Cole envisions. (See picture.) 

Then they took their new cosmic home on their great 
star trek through the universe. Most importantly, the 
Soviet scientists are convinced they fortified their inner 
home with some tough inner hull—probably made out of 
alloys of metal of some kind. Naturally, to withstand the 
rigors of their great space odyssey that spaceship hull would 
have had to be super-strong. And what are the super-tough 
elements known to man? Titanium, chromium, zirconium— 
to name three. They are corrosion- and heat-resistant ele¬ 
ments. Though they are comparatively rare on Earth, they 
are surprisingly plentiful on the Moon. Why? It could be 
as the Soviet scientists theorize: evidence of their artificially 
reinforced hull and surface shell. 

It is interesting that we are just now using more and 
more of these materials ourselves because of these ad¬ 
mirable qualities. Not only for lining electrical furnaces, 
but for supersonic jets and spacecraft. Zirconium, also 
plentiful on the Moon, though a rare element on Earth, is 
strikingly unaffected by neutrons, so plentiful in atomic 


Is this proof that indeed a super-strong hull exists inside 
the Moon, made out of these super-strong elements, which 
lunar alien beings used to fashion and strengthen their 
spaceship world? Hardly. But as we shall see, rather con¬ 
vincing evidence indicates that such a hull exists inside 
the Moon. 

The major point here is that the very fact that some of 
our own scientists and engineers are conceiving and plan¬ 
ning to build a similar spaceship world to travel through 
space to the stars makes the Soviet spaceship theory sud¬ 
denly plausible. 

A common reaction to our first book delineating the 
Soviet spaceship theory was the objection: “Why would 
any beings go to such lengths to build such a huge space¬ 
craft? It seems preposterous.” 

To answer this objection we must point out that for 
interstellar space travel one must face the fact that the 
dimensions of the universe are incredible. Light, the fastest 
entity known to man, can traverse trillions of miles each 
year. Yet, for all its speed, it takes light 4.3 years to trek 
the vast gulf that separates us from the star nearest Earth, 
Alpha Centauri—a distance of 25,000,000,000,000 miles! 

Most scientists at NASA are convinced that this probably 
is farther than man will be able to travel in the foreseeable 
future. And, some are convinced, farther than man ever 

Many scientists doubt that man will ever conquer inter¬ 
stellar space to reach even the closest stars. The distances 
are just too vast. How would one ever develop a rocket 
ship that could hold enough food, fuel, and other supplies 
for such an immense journey? It would have to be a cosmic 
Noah’s Ark whose dimensions would be on the order of 
our own Earth or Moon. 

Precisely. Our Earth is a spaceship in a sense, moving 
through a tiny corner of the cosmos. Only our planet is 
locked in orbit around the Sun, an average star which is 
also traveling through the universe. 

The planet Earth is like a dog on a leash. Perhaps the 
planetoid Moon was once a similar world. 

Another important problem frequently brought up in 
interstellar travel considerations is the psychological stress 


of any long voyage through space. But to travel through 
space as we do now, on a world similar to our own; or per¬ 
haps inside a world, would eliminate this problem. For the 
two spaceships would be very similar—except on the inside- 
out world the horizon would rise above one instead of 
curving away, as it does on our exteriorly inhabited Space¬ 
ship Earth. 

The more one thinks about the plausibility of Spaceship 
Moon, the more one becomes convinced that what appears 
to be science-fiction instead turns out upon examination to 
be based more on scientific fact. 

If you find yourself flinching at this wild suggestion, you 
should call to mind the words of the great Niels Bohr, the 
father of atomic energy, who once observed, when told by 
a colleague about a way-out, lunatic theory: 

“Your theory is crazy. But not crazy enough to be true!” 

Perhaps this Soviet spaceship theory is! 

When l say a thing is true , I mean that I cannot help 
believing it. I am stating an experience as to which 
there is no choice . 

—Oliver Wendell Holmes 

SIX _ 


The two bold scientists who postulated the spaceship theory 
ended their thesis with this statement: 

We feel that the questions we have raised in con¬ 
nection with our Moon provide sufficient food for 
serious thought on the matter; the results may be the 
illumination of many lunar riddles. 

Now, of course, we have to wait for direct evidence 
to support our idea. Or to refute it. 

Probably there will not be long to wait. 


In this fashion Alexander Shcherbakov and Mikhail 
Vasin, Soviet researchers, concluded their case. 

In our upcoming chapters we shall begin to take a look 
at their, theory, examining the evidence that has poured 
back from the lunar programs, both Soviet and American. 
But before we delve into the evidence to see if it backs up 
the spaceship theory or wrecks it, let us do a little “lunar” 
armchair quarterbacking. If you had read this shocking 
treatise in the Soviet publication Sputnik back in July of 
1970, as I did—in which two orthodox scientists claimed 
that our Moon was not a completely natural world but a 
huge, hollo wed-out planetoid; that it had an inner shell of 
metal which served as its hull; that it had a reconstructed 
outer shell which was partly metallic rock; that there was 
evidence of artificial construction in its interior; that after 
traveling as a spaceship for eons through the cosmos it was 
powered and “steered” into orbit around our world at some 
undeterminate time in the past by some unknown aliens— 
your mind too would have boggled. 

If at that time you were a lunar expert with an open mind 
anxiously awaiting proof or disproof of this wild theory, 
you could have sat down and predicted what scientists 
should find on the Moon before our astronauts completed 
their lunar voyages. You can do it now. 

As you prepare to make your own Moon odyssey 
through this book, check these commonsense “predictions” 
of what scientists could expect to discover about our Moon. 
See if they do not come true. You will be amazed at how 
Spaceship Moon lives up to expectations, how it appears 
to show the very characteristics that one would expect 
from a hybrid world—a natural asteroid “constructed” and 
converted into a spaceship! 

Since our two Soviet spaceship theorists claimed that the 
Moon is a huge, hollowed-out world, then the following 
should have proven true: 

(1) If it really is hollowed out and a natural asteroid 
restructured into an inside-out world of a spacecraft, then 
orthodox scientists could be totally confused by what they 
find. Nevertheless, despite discovery of seemingly con¬ 
tradictory facts and evidences, it should definitely show 
clear proof that it is a hollow world. However, because 


of all kinds of artificial construction in the interior, the 
data supporting the hollow-Moon contention might seem 
somewhat confusing and to some extent be masked. Density 
studies and gravitational field studies nevertheless could 
give us tantalizing clues of what most orthodox scientists 
consider to be impossible—a natural hollow satellite. 

(2) If this alien asteroid was refashioned into an ar¬ 
tificially hohowed-out spaceship, then it should show 
evidences of massive, intense melting, undoubtedly many 
miles in depth. 

(3) A corollary of this: Some scientists, such as Dr. 
Harold Urey, were convinced before man went to the Moon 
that it must have been formed “cold”—that it was too tiny 
an orb to have generated sufficient heat to have been a hot 
body in space and produced extensive melting or volcanic 
eruptions to the exterior. Other scientists disagreed, claim¬ 
ing that evidence pointed definitely to a “hot” Moon. All 
scientists felt that going to the Moon would prove con¬ 
clusively one way or the other which theory was correct. 

However, if the Moon was a natural asteroid which had 
been artificially restructured, then both sides should find 
evidence to support their theories. Both should be able to 
garner facts and evidence each contradicting the other, yet 
each supporting their respective orthodox positions. Unless, 
of course, both consider the possibility that they might be 
looking at an artificially restructured spaceship. Then seem¬ 
ing contradictions become suddenly enlightening evidence. 

(4) If these aliens did pour out much internal lava, either 
to hollow out or later to reinforce their spaceship, then the 
outside surface areas of the Moon would contain material 
that originally was deep within the body of this world. This 
should give a strange picture to lunar experts, making it ap¬ 
pear as if the Moon had been made “inside out.” More¬ 
over, if the alien used metallic elements in reconstructing or 
reinforcing the outer shell, the lunar samples that the as¬ 
tronauts brought back might contain pure metal or metal 
particles with evidence of artificial processing or manufac¬ 
turing, perhaps even giving evidence of a superior tech¬ 
nology beyond even that of modern Space Age man. 

(5) If the moon is a huge hollow sphere and if the in¬ 
terior of this world really has a metalic-type spaceship hull, 
as the Soviet scientists claim, then seismic results of Apollo 


spacecraft crashed into it (such as lunar modules and rocket 
stages) should produce different, even puzzling vibrations 
and tremors. If the hull is metallic these tremors could be 
of extremely long duration. In fact, these man-made 
crashes could make this huge metallic sphere vibrate like a 
huge bell or gong. Also, the vibrations should carry ex¬ 
tremely far, being conveyed not just great distances but, if 
the hull goes all the way around the Moon, as the Soviet 
reseachers say, carried completely around the entire orb. 
Unhe&rd of in a natural world, but something to watch 

(6) If these alien “Moonmen” used materials such as 
iron and titanium in creating this inner hull or shell, as well 
as in forming the maria, then large areas of the Moon 
should be devoid of metals while inner areas and the metal- 
rich maria should prove to have them in great amounts. 

(7) If high-temperature metals were used in these con¬ 
structions, which require intense heat to melt, the Moon 
might give evidence of this. What could alien beings have 
used to produce such high temperatures? Probably exten¬ 
sive concentrations of radioactivity, properly used. If this 
is true, then the Moon may give evidence of being much 
more radioactive than Earth. Secondly, since this lava was 
poured out onto the surface of the Moon, these outer areas 
should contain high concentrations of radioactive elements, 
maybe even intense hot spots. This would appear to be 
puzzling to orthodox scientists, but evidence of this alien 
formed world that our Soviet theorists posit should be 
found on the moon. 

(8) If these Soviet scientists are correct in their surmise 
that the Moon as an artificially formed spaceship came here 
from somewhere else, then the Moon will present a different 
face from what scientists expect. Its bulge, for instance, 
may even be on the side that has never faced us—the back 
side of the Moon—instead, as scientists have always as¬ 
sumed, on the near side! 

(9) If the Moon has an internal atmosphere in its hollow 
regions, probably to sustain life, then the outer surface 
might be extremely dry but at times could give evidence of 
a great amount of water or other gases. The Soviet scientists 
theorize the inner part of this alien world is probably filled 
with “gases required for breathing, and for technological 


and other purposes,” and some of this gas might be vented 
outward “through cracks appearing in the armour plating.” 
If so, these gases could be detected outside, on the sur¬ 
face. They could very well have a high water vapor con¬ 
tent, so that this dry, dry Moon might yet show surprising 
amounts of water vapor. 

(10) Similarly, although earlier Moon probes indicated 
that the Moon has almost no magnetic field, if the Moon 
did travel through the cosmos as long and as widely as the 
Soviet spaceship theorists think it did, then Moon rocks 
might have been affected by other global and solar magnetic 
fields and evidence of this would be “frozen” into Moon 
rocks. Our scientists could therefore be in for a big mag¬ 
netic surprise! 

(11) If the Moon did come from afar and has not al¬ 
ways been circling Earth, then the make-up of the Moon, 
its composition, could be much different. It might even 
contain elements our planet Earth does not have! More¬ 
over, it might give evidence of being older than the oldest 
rocks we have found on Earth. Finally, if it traveled 
through different parts of the universe, trekking through dif¬ 
ferent star systems of differing ages, then its surface should 
be covered with different rocks and particles of widely 
varying ages. And it is even possible that if those portions 
of the universe were younger than the original “home” of 
the aliens, we could have lunar crust being much older 
than many of the rocks lying on its surface! What to scien¬ 
tists would appear to be an impossible order of things. 

(12) Finally, if the Moon is such a refashioned planetoid 
or asteroid with all kinds of artificial construction in its in¬ 
terior, then seismic records would probably yield some 
perplexing results—not the least perplexing of which might 
be identical signals trackings. For artificial construction 
might on the Moon’s interior give a seismic picture that 
could be virtually the same each and every time. On the sur¬ 
face, to scientists not tuned into the artificial-Moon hy¬ 
pothesis, this might appear impossible. 

In conclusion, lunar experts might find many puzzling, 
contradictory conundrums on such a world. Many im¬ 
possible findings and discoveries could lead scientists in gen¬ 
eral to find the Moon more of a mystery now than before 
we examined it at close range. Because of such contradic- 


tions and conflicts, scientists might find it impossible to 
weave a unified theory that would explain this mystery 
world, the Moon. 

But in light of the spaceship theory the mysteries would 
dissolve. But among orthodox scientists, overwhelmed by 
the multiplying mysteries and perplexing problems, a cyn¬ 
ical few might conclude that such a “craizy” world cannot 
exist. For without the spaceship moon hypothesis, they will 
not be able to explain its. origin or its nature; they will not 
be able to begin to understand it. 

By now, you know how strange a place the Moon is, 
how it should not even be here . Its origin is even 
stranger . 

—George Leonard 

SEVEN _i_ 


Consider these tantalizing questions: 

• Why is it that how the Moon came to our skies remains 
“the biggest puzzle of them all,” according to NASA’s own 

• Why do leading scientists confess that they do not know 
where the Moon came from or how it got here—that, as one 
Nobel prize-winning scientist admitted, “All explanations 
are improbable”? 

• Why does one NASA expert admit: “It seems much 
easier to explain the non-existence of the Moon than its 

• Why do our leading scientists today facetiously suggest 
that the Moon does not exist at all, since there seems to be 
no way for it to have originated? 


• Why do some leading scientists refer to the Moon as a 
cosmic freak of nature —claiming that it is too big,, too far 
out to be the natural satellite of Earth? 

• What evidence exists that our Moon is not the true, 
natural satellite of Earth? 

• Why are scientists today unable to comprehend or ex¬ 
plain the most commonly accepted theory among lunar 
experts, which claims that our Moon was naturally “cap¬ 


• Why do most experts in celestial mechanics claim that 
the capture of our Moon in the gravitational field of our 
own planet is virtually impossible or at the very least 
highly improbable? 

• How does our Moon’s stable, well-behaved circular orbit 
indicate that it was not naturally put into orbit around 
our world? 

• Why do some leading scientists claim that the Moon was 
put into such an orbit by “some unknown force”? What is 
that force? 

• Why is the Moon so precisely positioned in the heavens 
that to an observer on Earth its disk size exactly equals 
the Sun’s disk size? How does this make eclipses possible— 
the only planet that we know of that has them? 

• Why do scientists find it incredible that our Moon has 
such a precise position and why is this not understandable 
except through the Soviet Spaceship Moon theory? 

• Why does a knowledge of celestial mechanics and the 
experience from our own space launching of satellites indi¬ 
cate that the Moon was “powered” and “steered” into orbit 
around the planet Earth? 

Now let us turn to the evidence . • • 


Victor Hugo, the great French author, once called the 
Moon “the kingdom of dreams, the province of illusion.” 


It has been just that for scientists. They figured that the 
Moon could very well be the Rosetta Stone of our universe, 
the key that would unlock the secrets of the origin of our 
solar system as well as furnish many, many secrets of the 
cosmos. That was before we went there. 

So far it has been anything but that. So far the Moon 
has only served to confound and perplex scientists. For we 
are now more confused about its origin and its nature— 
about where and when and how the Moon came into being 
and what its make-up essentially is—than we were before 
we went there. 


Admittedly, before man traveled to our nearest neighbor 
in space, all science was in a quandary about this strange, 
enigmatic world circling our Earth. Where it came from 
and how it got here were questions our scientists had no 
certain answers to. 

Three major theories were .developed by scientists of 
Earth to explain how the Moon came into being—or at least 
how it came to be circling Earth. First the hypothesis was 
advanced that it evolved along with Earth, both being born 
out of the same cosmic cloud of dust and gas about 4.6 
billion years ago. The second theory is that our Moon 
fissioned or split off from Earth after our planet’s birth 
eons ago. The third is that the Moon was a latecomer, 
formed independently and far from our Earth, then “cap¬ 
tured” and locked into orbit around us as it was passing 
through our planet’s gravitational field. 

The majority of Earth scientists thought that our Moon 
was formed with the planet out of a cosmic cloud of dust 
and gas about 4.6 billion years ago. A smaller segment of 
the scientific community thought it might have once been a 
part of our planet. George Darwin, son of the famed evo¬ 
lutionist Charles Darwin, theorized that our Moon was 
split off from our planet in an act of celestial fission. Famed 
astronomer William H. Pickering adopted a form of this 
theory when he theorized that it might have been tom out 
of the Pacific area early in our Earth’s evolutionary career. 

Although theoretically this vast Pacific basin is large 


enough to hold a body as great as the Moon, and although 
there does exist around the rim of the Pacific a volcanic, 
earthquake “ring of fire,” believed by some scientists to be 
evidence of the birth pangs of Luna leaving the womb of 
Mother Earth, most researchers rejected this theory, since 
immense difficulties of celestial mechanics made it nearly 
impossible. The young age of the Pacific itself militated 
against this kind of fissioning off of our Moon, for this 
would have had to have taken place at an early stage of 
Earth’s evolution. On this all scientists agree. Thus, it could 
not have been wrenched from this area even if scientists 
were to assume the celestial mechanics were possible. 

Furthermore, the death blow appears to come from the 
Moon itself. Evidence extricated from our Apollo expe¬ 
ditions indicates that the composition of the Moon is much 
different than that of Earth. If the Moon were a child of 
Earth, fissioned off from the Pacific (or any other area), 
then we would expect its composition to be about the 
same. It is not. 

These very same findings seem to militate against the 
Moon’s evolving with our own planet and forming out of 
the same cosmic cloud of dust and gas. And the fact that 
further evidence indicates that the Moon may be older than 
Earth also deals this theory a crushing blow. 

This leaves only the capture theory, an idea that was not 
too well accepted by scientists before Apollo, since astro¬ 
physicists and experts in celestial mechanics claimed that 
such an eventuality was highly improbable, if not virtually 

Even if scientists were to assume that the improbable 
capture could have happened, that the Moon would have 
ended up with its present circular orbit is just too incredible 
to believe. For a natural celestial capture—and this astro¬ 
physicists stress—would have produced a highly elliptical 
instead of a circular orbit. How then to account for the 
Moon’s circular orbit around our Earth? No scientific 
theory adequately does—except, of course, the unorthodox 
theory of two orthodox scientists of the Soviet Academy of 
Sciences who maintain that the Moon was powered and 
steered into orbit around Earth. 



‘This is the biggest puzzler of them all,” observes a 
NASA document. And one to which not only NASA scien¬ 
tists but experts the world over freely admit there is at 
present no solution—despite all our efforts, all our data, 
facts, and figures. 

The truth is that today scientists are unable to come up 
with any adequate theory that embraces all the known, 
and often apparently contradictory, facts about our Moon. 
No one has discovered a way to solve all the conundrums 
and perplexing puzzles. No one has worked out a theory 
that will unify all the conflicting data, molding them into 
a sensible hypothesis. No one save the Soviet spaceship 
theorists, that is. 

Everything points, however, to the fact that our Moon 
came from elsewhere in the universe, as we shall see. One 
of the few scientists to hold that this was so even before 
Apollo was Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner.* Urey 
held that precisely because our Moon was from another 
part of the cosmos, the Moon would necessarily be as fas¬ 
cinating an alien world as any that man could find. As Urey 
put it: “Stepping on the Moon would have the same interest 
as stepping on Mars, or the asteroids, or Venus.” 

We point out that if the Soviet spaceship theory is correct 
then it would be of even greater interest! The greatest one 
that man could possibly imagine! 



Unbelievably, this has come to be a joke among lunar 
scientists today. Why go that far, even if it is in jest? Be>- 
cause, as Dr. Robin Brett notes, NASA scientists “weighing 

* Back in the 1960s Urey asserted: “Is it possible that two bodies 
like the Earth and the Moon could have accumulated near each 
other in space from debris of some kind, and have markedly different 
densities. So far as we know there is no reason why the more dense 
material should accumulate into a large object, die Earth, and the 
less dense material should prefer to accumulate in the small object. 
Thus, accordingly as an explanation for two planets so near each 
other appears to us today to be very improbable.” 


what has been learned” do not seem to be able to account 
for the existence of our Moon. 

“All three theories have weaknesses in the light of our 
present knowledge,” he explains. “The composition of the 
returned lunar samples makes it difficult to derive them 
from anything like the composition of the Earth’s mantle. 
This, therefore, makes the fission theory extremely unlikely. 
And if the Moon was formed as an identical twin planet 
with the same composition as the Earth’s mantle, the same 
argument applies against that theory. The capture theory 
presents difficulties in celestial mechanics and is regarded 
as statistically improbable. It seems much easier to explain 
the non-existence of the Moon than its existence.” (John 
Wilford, We Reach for the Moon , W. W. Norton, 1971. 
Emphasis added.) 

Dr. William K. Hartmann, senior scientist at the Plane¬ 
tary Science Institute in Arizona, points out in Astronomy 
magazine: “Each of these main pre-Apollo themes seemed 
to have a fatal flaw. Some scientists were driven by frus¬ 
tration to facetiously suggest that perhaps the Moon doesn’t 
exist at all , since there seemed no way for originating it” 
(Emphasis added.) 


Many scientists in modern times have come to regard 
the Moon as a cosmic freak of nature. Why? Because by all 
cosmic laws, they point out, the Moon should not be orbit¬ 
ing our planet Earth! 

Why do leading scientists like Isaac Asimov assert this? 
Simply because our satellite seems to be too big for our 
planet earth. It is a whopping one-fourth of our planet’s 
size, and proportionately is the largest satellite that we 
know of orbiting any world. For though a satellite of 
Jupiter, for instance, is actually larger in size, the Jovian 
satellite Ganymede is only one twenty-seventh the size of 
the planet it circles. 



Not only is our Moon too large, but scientists also point 
out it is actually too far out in its orbit to be a natural 
satellite of our planet. The prolific science writer Isaac 
Asimov, who is a scientist in his own right, asks: “What in 
blazes is our own Moon doing way out there ?” (Emphasis 

“It’s too far out to be a true satellite of the Earth. It’s 
too big to have been captured by the Earth. The chances 
of such a capture having been effected and the Moon then 
having taken up nearly circular orbit around our Earth are 
too small to make such an eventuality credible.” ( Asimov 
on Astronomy, Doubleday, 1974.) 

Scientists in general would agree. But most remain con¬ 
founded by this conundrum. Our Moon should, not be there 
in circular orbit around our Earth, and many insist it should 
not be there period! Not perhaps as a natural world, but an 
artificially “steered” world, yes. Grudgingly all scientists 
must admit that the problem disappears in light of the 
Soviet spaceship theory. 


Isaac Asimov concludes that our Moon is not, as is 
commonly believed, the true satellite of our planet. He 
claims that if it were “it would almost certainly be orbiting 
in the plane of Earth’s equator and it isn’t.” 

There are still others powerful reasons why the Moon 
cannot be a true satellite of Earth, insists Asimov. He 
claims the Moon should not be orbiting our planet because 
of what he calls “the tug of war” ratio. 

“The Sun attracts the Moon twice as strongly as the 
Earth does.” ( Asimov on Astronomy.) This ratio of the 
Moon’s size and distance in relation to the Earth and to the 
Sun indicates that it should have been gone long ago. The 
Sun should have won this tug of war and pulled the Moon 
away, but somehow it hasn’t. 

Asimov claims that our so-called natural Moon gives 
every indication that it is not a true satellite of ours. He 


also rejects the possibility of its having been captured. This 
seems to lead to the horns of a dilemma, as he himself 
points out: 

“But, then if the Moon is neither a true satellite of the 
Earth, nor a captured one, what is it?” ( Asimov on 
Astronomy .) 

Asimov tries to slip off the horns of this dilemma by 
postulating that the Moon is really a planet in its own right. 
The problem here is that all the evidence from our Apollo 
and the Soviet flights indicates that our Moon is too differ¬ 
ent in make-up to be a double planet, so this does not 
appear to be the correct theory either. Further, if evidence 
that the Moon is older than the Earth is correct, then it 
must have come here from somewhere else in the universe. 
That brings us back to the only other possibility (aside from 
the spaceship theory): namely, that the Moon was cap¬ 
tured. And this leads us back to the problems of how it 
came to be captured by our Earth and how it could have 
ended up in its present circular orbit. 

Surprisingly, more and more scientists, despite all these 
difficulties, are now considering this theory that the Moon 
and our Earth somehow evolved separately, far from each 
other, and our Moon somehow came to be captured by 
Earth. But this is hard to accept, not only because of the 
previously raised objections but also because of the unique, 
strange position the scientists find the Moon in today. And 
here we may discover another hint that indicates that our 
Moon did not “just happen” to “fall” into a chance orbit 
around our planet. 


The disks of the Sun and the Moon appear to be just 
about equal as viewed from Earth. Of course, the apparent 
size of the Moon and the Sun depend upon their respective 
distances as well as their actual sizes. The Moon is only 
2160 miles in diameter, while the diameter of the Sun is 
864,000 miles. That makes the Sun's diameter approxi¬ 
mately 400 times greater. To put it another way, the ratio 
of our Moon’s disk to the Sun’s is 1:400. 


However, our Sun is 93,000,000 miles away and the 
Moon only about a quarter of a million miles away. 
Strangely enough, this works out to about the same ratio— 
approximately 1:400. So the distance just about cancels 
out the size, and this is why the tiny Moon appears to the 
viewer on the Earth to be about the same size as our gi¬ 
gantic Sun. 

This is shown remarkably during a total eclipse. Isaac 
Asimov makes an observation about this truly amazing 
situation, which he calls “coincidence.” 

In his book Space , Time and Other Things (Doubleday, 
1965) he notes: “What makes a total eclipse so remarkable 
is the sheer astronomical accident that the Moon fits so 
snugly over the Sun. The Moon is just large enough to 
cover the Sun completely (at times) so that a temporary 
night falls and the stars spring out. And it is just small 
enough so that during the Sun’s observation, the corona, 
especially the brighter parts near the body of the Sun, is 
completely visible.” 

What does Asimov make of this remarkable piece of 
astronomical good luck? “There is no astronomical reason 
why the Moon and the Sun should fit so well. It is the 
sheerest of coincidences, and only the Earth among all the 
planets is blessed in this fashion.” 


The chances of the Moon’s being in a position so exact 
as to just equal the disk of the Sun in relation to the planet 
Earth is—pardon the pun—astronomical. To paraphrase a 
quote from Asimov, which he uttered about the possibility 
of the Moon’s having been, captured by Earth and ended 
up in a circular orbit: The chances of the Mooris just 
happening to be in this position are too incredible to be 

This “accident” is just too astronomically farfetched to 
be truly an accident. In light of the Spaceship Moon theory, 
however, all these striking aspects of our Moon’s strange 
orbit around us—its circular, nonequatorial orbit plus the 
other strange characteristics—seem to make it clear that 
our nearest neighbor in space is where it is not by accident. 


Admittedly, if the Spaceship Moon theory is accepted, 
all these problems disappear. If intelligent beings put Space¬ 
ship Moon in orbit around Earth—which we are confident 
wifi soon become clear and convincing to you—then the 
reason why the Moon lies in precisely this “remarkable” 
orbit is clear as day. To sum it up simply: It was “put” 

One physicist at a Midwestern university, who has be¬ 
come convinced that our Moon may well indeed be a 
spaceship, remarked on this strange position of the Moon: 
"It’s almost as if these aliens were waving a flag at man and 
saying—* Look here! Here is proof that the Moon is more 
than just a mere moon!* 99 


But despite this intriguing evidence, the vast majority of 
orthodox scientists adhere to the old theories. Without the 
spaceship theory to resolve the kind of difficulties we have 
pointed out, the majority of scientists at the last major 
world meeting of lunar experts, The Fifth Lunar Con¬ 
ference, officially adopted the capture theory that holds that 
our Moon was gravitationally “kidnapped” by Earth. They 
didn’t resolve the difficulties of the celestial mechanics; 
they just went ahead and adopted it. Before man went to 
the Moon the vast majority of these scientists would not 
begin to even consider this far-out hypothesis because of 
the immense difficulties it entails. 

Dr. Harold Urey summed it all up when he wrote before 
the Apollo journeys: “All explanations now offered are 
improbable.” He holds that to this day. “I do not know . . . 
the origin of the Moon, I’m not sure of my own or any 
other’s modeL I’d lay odds against any of the models pro¬ 
posed being correct.” 

Urey himself had leaned toward the capture theory, 
although he too had serious reservations about it. For even 
if scientists were to grant that the Moon, as a wandering 
orb of the outer cosmos, just happened to drift too close 
to our planet’s gravitational field, and even if all conditions 
were proper for it to be gravitationally caught, it is hard 
to see how it could have ended up in its present orbit. 


Such a capture should have produced a rather elongated, 
elliptical orbit instead of the nearly circular path the Moon 
now follows around Earth. Indeed as the Soviet scientists 
insist, it seems that it was steered into orbit around our 

A well-known American science writer, William Roy 
Shelton, makes this striking observation in his book Win¬ 
ning the Moon (Little, Brown & Company, 1970), which 
focuses in on this problem: 


It is important to remember that something had to 
put the moon at or near its present circular pattern 
around the Earth. Just as an Apollo spacecraft circling 
the earth every ninety minutes while one hundred 
miles high has to have a velocity of roughly 18,000 
miles per hour to stay in orbit, so something had to 
give the moon the precisely required velocity for its 
weight and altitude. For instance, it could not have 
been blown out from Earth at some random speed or 
direction. We found this out when we first began to 
try to orbit artificial satellites. We discovered that un¬ 
less the intended satellite reached a certain altitude at 
a certain speed and on a certain course parallel to the 
surface of the earth, it would not have the necessary 
centrifugal force to maintain the delicate balance with 
the gravity of Earth which would permit it to remain 
in the desired orbit. (P. 58.) 

What force put it into orbit around Earth? If we can prove 
that the Moon is hollow, that is also has a hard inner shell 
of metal or metallic rock, such evidence would be fairly 
conclusive that it is indeed a spaceship. Then the problem 
about its peculiar circular orbit disappears. 

As Shelton further delineates: “The point—and it is one 
seldom noted in considering the origin of the moon—is that 
it is extremely unlikely that any object would just stumble 
into the right combination of factors required to stay in 
orbit. ‘Something* had to put the moon at its altitude, on 
its course and at its speed. The question is: what was that 
something?” (Winning the Moon, pp. 58—60.) 

In light of the Soviet spaceship theory “that something” 
that Shelton speaks of is clear. In fact, we should ask not 


just what “that something” was, but who that someone was 
that put the Moon around Earth—for it was alien intelli¬ 
gence Soviet scientists Vasin and Shcherbakov claim, that 
put Spaceship Moon in orbit around Earth. 

The,author of Winning the Moon concludes: 

“Discovering what that something was, given the moon’s 
known distance from earth, its known huge relative size, 
and its known way of rotating, has occupied astronomers, 
scientists, and more recently, engineers in an attempt to 
solve one of the most fascinating riddles known to men on 

We are convinced that a couple of Soviet researchers 
have solved this great cosmic riddle. And after reviewing 
the array of evidence for “Spaceship Moon” we are con¬ 
vinced you will agree with their mind-boggling, earth-shak¬ 
ing theory. Indeed, after reviewing all the arguments mar¬ 
shaled in this book that prove the Moon to be a vast hollow 
world which is in fact a spaceship, you will see how clear 
the evidence is that our Moon was “powered” and “steered” 
into orbit around our planet Earth. 

The moon must be enormously cavernous with an at¬ 
mosphere within, and at the centre of its caverns a 
sea. One knew that the moon had a lower specific 
gravity than the earth . . . one knew, too, that it was 
sister planet to the earth and that it was unaccount¬ 
able that it should be different in composition . The 
inference that it was hollowed out was as clear as day . 

— H. G. Wells (1901) 



Tantalizing questions: 

• How does the Moon’s strange density indicate that it 
may be hollow? 

• Why does a leading British lunar expert, former head of 
the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Association, 


conclude: “Everything points to the Moon being hollow 
20-30 miles underneath its crust”? 

• Why is it that leading scientists agree that a natural 
satellite cannot be a hollow object? Why can we then con¬ 
clude that if the Moon’s interior is hollow, it was artificially 
hollowed out? 

• Why does a pre-Apollo NASA study done by leading 
NASA scientists conclude that the Moon’s motions indicate 
that our satellite may be a hollow orb? 

• How does the gravitational-field study indicate the fright¬ 
ening possibility that the Moon might be hollow? Why is 
this conclusion “frightening”? 

• Why does the density of Moon rocks brought back by 
our astronauts indicate that the Moon is hollow? 

• Why do man-made crashes of space equipment (lunar 
landing modules and spent stages of rockets) into the 
surface of the Moon cause the Moon to “ring” like a huge 
bell or gong? Why does the Moon vibrate for up to four 
hours? Why does this indicate that the Moon is a huge 
hollow sphere? 

• Why do studies of the Moon’s rotational motion indicate 
that the Moon may be hollow? 

• What evidence is there that our own space agency carried 
out secret studies to see if there were extensive hollows in 
the Moon’s interior? Why did they do this? 

• Why have translational motion studies of the Moon 
(motion of the center of mass) which indicate that the 
densest regions of the Moon are nearest its* surface (indi¬ 
cating that the Moon is hollow) been disregarded? Why are 
these scientific objections overcome in the hollow-spaceship 

• Why does all the evidence indicate that our Moon is a 
huge hollowed-out orb? 

Let us now examine the shocking evidence! 



“Is the Moon hollow?” This happens to be the title of a 
chapter in Our Moon , one of the most authoritative books 
ever written on the Moon, by H. P. Wilkins, former head 
of the Lunar Section of the British Astronomical Associ¬ 
ation. It was published in the fifties, more than two decades 
before two Soviet scientists postulated their hollo w-Moon 

Dr. Wilkins (who died at the beginning of the Space 
Age), one of the world’s leading lunar experts, claimed 
that the Moon could very well be hollow—at least to a 
great extent. As Wilkins pointed out in the. thirteenth chap¬ 
ter of his fine book Our Moon: “Everything points to a more 
or less hollow nature of the crust of the Moon within some 
20 or 30 miles of the surface ” (Emphasis added.) 

Shades of H. G. Wells! And strikingly like the Soviet 
spaceship theory. 

What led Wilkins to his remarkable conclusion? 

First of all, the Moon, even before man traveled there, 
was known to be only about half as dense as the material 
out of which the planet Earth was formed. In fact, the 
Moon is only about 60 percent as dense as our own world. 
That is, if one were to take a cubic mile of the Moon and 
compare its weight with that of a cubic mile of Earth, the 
latter would weigh nearly twice as much. 

Why? The fact that a given volume of Moon material 
seemed to weigh about half as much as an equal volume of 
the Earth mystified scientists. How to account for the 

Some of the scientists felt that the answer lay in the fact 
that the material out of which our Moon world was formed 
was in fact very light and hence weighed only about half 
as much. 

Some scientists, such as Dr. Harold Urey, felt that the 
solution might be that the Moon was without a heavy core, 
resulting in a lower overall density. Other equally pres¬ 
tigious scientists, such as British astronomer Wilkins, opted 
for a hollow moon—at least one with huge hollow areas. 

In his authoritative study Our Moon the eminent British 


scientist explains his astounding conclusion: “Long ago it 
was calculated that if the Moon had contracted on cooling 
at the same rate as granite, a drop of only 180F. would 
create hollows in the interior amounting to no less than 
14 millions of cubic miles.” 'According to Wilkins, it ap¬ 
pears that our Moon has a great portion that might contain 
naturally hollow caverns or regions. He adds: “However, it 
is unlikely that the Moon contracted at the same rate as 
granite; it is almost certain that nothing like 14 millions of 
cubic miles of cavities were formed. . . . Nevertheless, 
everything points to the more or less hollow nature of the 
crust of the Moon . . . within some 20 or 30 miles of the 
surface. It thus appears that hidden from us are extensive 
cavities, underground tunnels and crevasses, no doubt often 
connected with the surface by fissures, cracks or blow¬ 

Later we shall see that evidence for such openings into 
a hollow moon does exist. 

Wilkins continues: 

“Without going so far as H. G. Wells, who imagined a 
strange race of creatures, the Selenites, inhabiting these 
hollows, which were however subordinate to an elaborate 
system of artificial tunnellings, the cavernous interior of the 
world within the Moon must be a strange place. Immersed 
in impenetrable darkness and absolute silence, the walls 
doubtless studded with numerous crystals, these gloomy 
caverns, branching and winding, here and there connected 
with the surface by a half choked pit or an open crack, may 
contain surprises for the first space-travellers to land on 
the Moon.” (Our Moon , pp. 119-20.) 

Not the least surprise—if we are to believe the two 
Soviet spaceship theorists—could be the strange home of 
alien beings themselves! 

For if the Soviet theory that the Moon is hollow through 
and through is valid, then the Moon must be a spaceship! 
All scientists—at least all astronomers—agree with that 
conclusion. For from what is known about the way that 
worlds evolve, scientists know it cannot be naturally hollow. 

Even the conservative astronomer from Cornell Uni¬ 
versity, Dr. Carl Sagan, admits this. In the early sixties 
Dr. Sagan coauthored a book (Intelligent Life in the Uni¬ 
verse, Holden Day, 1966) with another scientist connected 


with the Soviet Academy of Sciences, astrophysicist Iosif 
Shklovsky, who theorized at the time that the moons of 
Mars might be hollow and would therefore have to be 
space stations. 

Sagan agreed: “A natural satellite cannot be a hollow 
object.” ( Intelligent Life in the Universe .) 

Thus, astronomers are in general agreement that if the 
Moon is hollow, then it must have been hollowed out arti¬ 
ficially! And this brings us around to the Vasin-Shcher- 
bakov Spaceship Moon theory. 

These two scientists claim that their density study of the 
Moon indicates that the Moon could be hollow. In their 
scientific treatise they postulate: “If you are going to launch 
an artificial sputnik, then it is advisable to make it hollow. 
. . . It is more likely that what we have here is a very an¬ 
cient spaceship, the interior of which was filled with fuel 
for the engines.” 

Shcherbakov and Vasin observe that the density of the 
Moon would indicate it could be hollow: “Why is there 
such a big difference between the specific gravity of the 
Moon (3.33 grammes per cubic centimeter )and that of the 
Earth (5.5 gr.)?” The solution is that the Moon is hollow! 

They conclude: “Since the Moon’s diameter is 2,162 
miles, then looked at from our point of view it is a thin- 
walled sphere. ...” 

They point out the precedent for their reasoning: “A 
similar ‘crazy* idea was put forward in 1959 by Professor 
Iosif Shklovsky, an eminent scientist, in relation to the 
‘moons* circling round Mars. After carefully weighing up 
the evidence he concludes that they are both hollow and 
therefore artificial satellites.”* 


Is there any hard, solid scientific evidence to prove that 
our Moon is actually hollow and a spaceship? 

Surprisingly, even before the Moon manned-landing pro- 

* Shklovsky backed down from his hollow-Martian-moons theory 
after later evidence indicated that they might not be hollow. 


gram was launched, a NASA scientist had come up with 
such evidence! 


It was this discovery which helped convince me that 
there might be something to this crazy Soviet spaceship 
theory. For, frankly, although I was intrigued by the Soviet 
hollow-moon theory and even though I admitted it might 
be plausible, their evidence was not that convincing. Most 
of it, in fact, seemed at best to be circumstantial. 

About all I was convinced of was that it might be an 
excellent vehicle for an intriguing science-fiction novel, 
which I began writing. As I was researching the subject of 
the Moon I stumbled across some evidence that jolted me, 
I was reading America's Race for the Moon (Random 
House, 1962), edited by Walter Sullivan. The book, sub¬ 
titled Story of Project Apollo , is a collection of scientific 
articles on the Moon and our lunar space program. 

In this fascinating work I read about a study done by 
Dr. Gordon MacDonald of an analysis of the Moon’s 
motions. Walter Sullivan noted in his article, “What Will 
the Moon Be Like”: 

“Even more startling is a report by a leading scientist 
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration that, 
according to an analysis of the moon’s motions, it appears 
to be hollow” (Emphasis added.) 

Digging out Dr. MacDonald’s study, I discovered his 

“If the astronomical data are reduced, it is found that 
the data require that the interior of the Moon be less dense 
than the outer parts. Indeed, it would seem that the Moon 
is more like a hollow than a homogenous sphere.” ( Astro¬ 
nautics, February 1962, p. 225.) 

However, as Walter Sullivan points out, Dr. MacDonald 
did not accept the conclusion of his own study that the 
Moon is hollow. This outstanding scientist, perhaps realiz¬ 
ing the truth of the astronomical principle that no satellite 
world can be naturally hollow, that there is no such thing 
as a hollow planet or planetoid in space that is naturally 


hollow, “does not suggest that the moon really is hollow.” 
Says Sullivan: “Rather, he believes something is wrong, 
either with the data or the calculations.” ( America’s Race 
for the Moon , p. 96.) 

In Astronautics Dr. MacDonald spells out why he re¬ 
jected the hollow-Moon conclusion: “This suggests that 
there are inconsistencies either in the reduction of the 
observations of the moon’s motions or in the numerical 
development of the lunar theory.” 

Thus, rather than accept the basic conclusion of the 
study, which indicates clearly that the Moon behaves more 
like a hollow sphere than a solid body, MacDonald believed 
that either something was wrong with the data or there 
were inconsistencies in observation. 

The thought has since struck me time and again: What 
if, privately, NASA scientists and officials actually accepted 
the hollow-Moon conclusion and suspected that the Moon 
was in fact a spaceship? And that this indeed was the 
strong impetus to reach the Moon and find out once and 
for all? Buoyed by this knowledge and the evidence that 
strange moving lights and objects seen on the Moon by 
astronomical observers indicated that the Moon was the 
source of the myriads of UFOs flooding Earth skies, both 
the Soviet and the American governments, operating in se¬ 
crecy, launched crash programs to reach this spaceship in 
Earth skies. 

Of course, this is mere speculation. But not speculation 
without foundation—as we have seen. 


When I read about the astonishing conclusion of the 
MacDonald hollow-Moon report I was mentally staggered. 
Naturally this provocative thought began to haunt me: 
Could the Soviet scientists be right after all? Is the Moon 
really hollow and thus a spaceship? 

My curiosity piqued, I set to work. I read through every 
NASA scientific document I could get my hands on. After 
poring over 15,000 pages of NASA and lunar scientific 
studies, I discovered more than 50 major proofs that, in 
my view, confirm the Soviet artificial-Moon theory, includ- 


ing several other independent studies that indicate the Moon 
is indeed hollow. These range from Dr. Harold Urey’s 
negative-mascon concept to Dr. Sean Solomon’s gravita¬ 
tional-field study. 


Dr. Sean C. Solomon of M.I.T. claims that a study of the 
gravitational fields of the Moon indicates that it could be 
hollow. Solomon concludes his study, which was published 
in Volume 6 of the technical periodical The Moon , An 
International Journal of Lunar Studies: 

“The Lunar Orbiter experiments vastly improved our 
knowledge of the Moon’s gravitational field . . . indicating 
the frightening possibility that the Moon might be hollow ” 
(Pp. 147-65. Emphasis added.) 

Frightening? Yes, because if the Moon is hollow it must 
have been artificially hollowed out by some alien intelli¬ 
gence—and that would necessarily make it a .spaceship! 

Without question, if it could be established as fact that 
the Moon is really hollow, it would be the greatest dis¬ 
covery in the history of science and the most fantastic that 
man has ever made. 


One outstanding lunar scientist who holds there is evi¬ 
dence that huge cavities or hollows might exist inside the 
Moon is Dr. Harold Urey. He maintains that there are 
“negative mascons” inside the Moon, huge areas beneath 
which “there is either matter much less dense than the rest 
of the Moon, or simply a cavity.” Technical data supporting 
this finding were uncovered by Dr. Sjogren, codiscoverer of 
the mascons. 

French science writer Jean Sendy, author of The Coming 
of the Gods (Berkley, 1973), is convinced such under¬ 
ground cavities exist: “Yes, if my underground base on 
the moon exists, this is where it ought to be.” {The Coming 
of the Gods.) Sendy is convinced that the Moon is the 


home of the ancient “gods”—as well as modern-day alien 

Sendy explains: “. . . if Dr. Sjogren’s study of the data 
transmitted by Lunar Orbiters leads to the discovery of 
a cavity under the surface of the Moon, and if ‘my* base is 
found there, I will be able to say, ‘You see, I was right!* 
And I wasn’t right by accident.” (The Coming of the Gods.) 


Whether the Moon is a completely hollow, thin-shelled 
or thin-walled sphere or merely has huge hollow areas 
like cavities or caverns has not been definitely determined 
yet—to our public knowledge, that is. But the Moon surely 
behaves internally as if it were hallow, as seismic evidence 
clearly shows. 


This was the headline of an article that appeared in the 
highly respected Science News Letter (April 22, 1961). 

The opening statement sums up pretty well this con¬ 
clusion : 

“The Moon is like a hollow sphere, heavier on the out¬ 
side than on the inside, according to the data from the 
Vanguard satellite and theories about the Moon.” 

This article’s opening statement seems to be verified by 
the latest evidence—a peculiar characteristic of the Moon 
rocks Apollo astronauts brought back to Earth. 


As we have seen, evidence and data scientists obtained 
on the density of the Moon long before our Space Age was 
launched indicated that our neighboring satellite was very 
light and possibly hollow. One of the best clues, therefore, 
as to whether this was a valid theory would come from 
the Moon rocks themselves. 


In their six trips to Luna our astronauts brought back 
almost a short ton of lunar material—837 pounds, to be 
exact. I knew the density of Moon rocks would be a major 
clue to the make-up and density of the Moon itself* I 
searched and searched for accurate data on the lunar 
rocks, without success. I found no specific data on their 
density published in any of the NASA or lunar journals. 

Then I got a revealing letter from another independent 
scientific researcher* He told me he had read my book 
Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon and was fascinated by the 
hollow-Moon theory. 

From reading it [the book] I gather that you are 
not aware of the most important fact about the moon’s 
density. A fact that makes your theory more tenable. 
. . . After the moon rocks were analyzed, I looked 
repeatedly for data on their densities, but this was not 
published. I eventually called Dr. Paul Gast [one of 
NASA’s leading scientists, who unfortunately passed 
away shortly thereafter] at his home and asked him 
what were their densities. 

He said they ran from 3.2 to 3.4. Now since the 
density of earth rocks averaged from 2.7 to 2.8 moon 
rocks were expected to be much lighter. You appar¬ 
ently saw the astronomers trying to drill about 30 
inches with a drill that would easily go through 12 feet 
of earthrock (or steel supposedly) and the rocks ob¬ 
viously got harder and probably denser with depth. In 
fact, the authorities now say that the moon is differ¬ 
entiated, its heavier elements having settled, so one 
will have to assume that densities increase. How can 
they when the moon’s density is no greater than the 
surface rocks unless the moon is hollow. . . . 

This would verify the earlier data that the Moon is heav¬ 
ier on the outside than on the inside; as Science News puts 
it, “the moon is like a hollow sphere.” 



Although specific data on the density of Moon rocks 
brought back to Earth were next to impossible to find, 
veteran science reporter Richard Lewis, who was among 
the NASA inside circle, got some information on the den¬ 
sity of lunar rocks. He pointed out in his book The Voyages 
of Apollo (Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co., 1976) 
that lunar material brought back from Apollo 11 and 12 
sites “were denser than Earth soils.” 

Again, how could this be? How could the Moon rocks 
be denser than Earth’s (assuming of course that this gen¬ 
eral characteristic of denser lunar rocks held up in general 
for the entire Moon—and apparently it did), when other 
equally convincing and valid data indicate the Moon ma¬ 
terial, based on its global weight, is only about half as dense 
as that of Earth? Unless, again, the weight of the Moon is 
in its outer shell and the interior of the Moon is hollow! 

A clear and distinct possibility and, considering all the 
other evidence, we think a clear probability! 


Another world of evidence exists to prove that the Moon 
is hollow—and it comes from inside the Moon globe 

Through scientific equipment and tests NASA and the 
world have learned a great deal about the Moon’s interior. 
Scientific stations were set up on the Moon’s surface which 
included sensitive seismometers that radioed a world of 
data back to Earth. The first were set up by Apollo 11 
astronauts in the Sea of Tranquility, and another by Apollo 
12 astronauts in the Sea of Storms. They were extremely 
sensitive—in fact, a hundred times more sensitive than any 
used on Earth, and able to record tremors almost one mil¬ 
lion times smaller than vibrations which human beings 
make. The sensitive seismometers even recorded the foot¬ 
falls of our astronauts. 

The first man-made crash directed at the Moon to divine 
its interior occurred after Apollo 12 astronauts had re- 


turned safely to their command ship and the lunar module 
ascent stage was sent smashing into the Moon’s surface, 
thus producing in effect an artificial moonquake. The shock 
waves of this hit staggered NASA scientists—the Moon 
vibrated for over 55 minutes. Furthermore, the kinds of 
signals recorded by the seismometers were utterly different 
from any ever received before, starting with small waves, 
gaining in size to a peak, and then lasting for incredibly 
long periods of time. A wave took seven to eight minutes 
to reach the peak of impact energy and then gradually 
decreased in amplitude over a period that lasted almost an 
hour. It was claimed that even after an hour the minutest 
reverberations still had not completely stopped. 

Amazingly, the LM hit the lunar surface about 40 miles 
from the landing site. The results were astonishing. All 
three seismometers in the package recorded the impact, 
which set up a sequence of reverberations lasting more than 
an hour. Nothing like this had ever been measured on 



The impact occurred at 4:15 p.m. CST, November 20, 
1969. A news conference had been scheduled to begin at 
4:30 p.m. And when it did, strangely enough, the Moon 
was still “ringing” as the scientists—all of them seismic ex¬ 
perimenters—arrived at the news center right out of their 

Maurice Ewing, co-head of the seismic experiment, told 
the afternoon news crowd of the stunning event, inform- 
ing them that the Moon was still ringing. He confessed 
he was at a loss to explain why the Moon behaved so 

“As for the meaning of it,” Ewing explained, “I’d rather 
not make an interpretation right now. But it is as though 
one had struck a bell, say, in the belfry of a church a 
single blow and found that the reverberation from it con¬ 
tinued thirty minutes.” 

Actually, unbeknown then to Ewing, the reverberations 
were to last for about twice that long. 

Dr. Frank Press of the Massachusetts Institute of Tech¬ 
nology was a bit more open and frank. 

“We have been exploring for a hypothesis walking over 
here and usually when we speak too soon we are wrong. 
But let me say that none of us have seen anything like this 


on Earth. In all our experience, it is quite an extraordinary 
event. That this rather small impact . . . produced a signal 
which lasted thirty minutes is quite beyond the range of our 
experience. So, whatever it turns out to be, I think it will 
represent a major discovery, completely unanticipated about 
the Moon.” 

However, the remarkable thing is that this is exactly what 
would have been expected in light of the Vasin-Shcherbakov 
hollow-Moon theory. If the interior of this spaceship world 
really has a metallic-type hull and is really hollow, the 
seismic results of an Apollo spacecraft crashing into it 
should have produced different vibrations and tremors, 
probably of extremely long duration. The crash of a lunar 
module should make this metallic lunar ball vibrate like a 
huge bell. And it did! 

Our own scientists were really at a loss to adequately 
explain the puzzle. As Richard Lewis puts it in his book The 
Voyages of Apollo “it was clear at the time of Apollo 12 
that Apollo investigators had ‘discovered’ a new kind of 
planetary structure in the Moon. How it evolved, as well 
as the details of its nature, represented one of the most 
elegant mysteries of the twentieth century.” (P. 124.) 

Oh, they did attempt various explanations, which of 
course did not fit the seismic data. 

Dr. Press of M.I.T. (now an advisor to President Carter) 
was one of the first to come up with some kind of explana¬ 
tion. He suggested that the LM impact might have touched 
off “a cascade of avalanches and collapses over a very 
large area.” 

This was not indicated, however, by the seismic data. 
For this indicated long, sustained response. The waves 
reached a peak between seven and eight minutes with 
hardly the slightest weakening evident at all. It took an 
amazing twenty minutes before the waves declined to half 
their strength. Then they gradually declined further, hang¬ 
ing on tenaciously for about an hour! This does not fit 
“the series of avalanches” explanation that Press offered.* 

* The Apollo II seismometer left on the Moon in July 1969 had 
picked up about 100 similar seismic events which, though smaller, 
nevertheless had caused the Moon to resonate for up to twenty 
minutes. At first scientists were skeptical. As Dr. Gary Latham 
said: “No one was prepared to accept the fact that they might be 


Another scientist suggested that the crash could have 
thrown lunar dust and debris so high into the atmosphere 
that it took almost an hour to come back down. Yet an¬ 
other proposed that “the LM itself might be to blame.” 
This strained explanation held that the empty spacecraft 
perhaps did not hit straight down into the Moon but rather 
smashed like a crashing plane, bouncing across the Sea of 
Storms “like a flat stone on a stream, dropping off parts 
as , it went.” 

However, as Science News (November 29, 1969) pointed 
out in dismissing all these weak explanations: 

“Such a series of blows, however, would be unlikely 
to produce the sustained, large tremors recorded by the 
seismometer; the same argument applies to the falling- 
moon-debris theory.” 


After the miracle of Apollo 12, scientists, particularly 
lunar seismologists, anxiously awaited the next big Moon 
crash. When Apollo 13’s third stage was propelled out of 
Earth orbit into a Moon trajectory and by radio command 
sent crashing into the Moon, it hit with an impact equiva¬ 
lent to 11 tons of TNT. It hit about 87 miles from the 
site where the Apollo 12 seismometers were located. 

The Moon gave a repeat performance—it shook, seis- 
mologically speaking, for more than 3 hours. In fact, 3 
hours and 20 minutes, to be exact! Moreover, the vibrations 
of that artificially induced moonquake traveled to a depth 
of 22-25 miles. Scientists again were astounded. Again 
NASA seismologists were dumbfounded and could not 
come up with a satisfactory explanation. 

But again, if the Soviet theory is correct, then such long 
reverberations are exactly what would be expected. Take 
any hollow, hard-crusted sphere, especially one that has a 
metal shell, strike it a hard blow, and it will behave exactly 
as our Moon behaved. 

due to impacts,'* Then came the Apollo 12 impact, which caused 
the Moon to vibrate for nearly an hour. Comments Latham, “now 
we think differently.” 



The next big blow to hit the Moon was that of Apollo 
14’s S-IVB, which was also boosted into a lunar crash 
course and by remote control sent smashing into the 
Moon’s surface. The moon behaved predictably, in the 
same way. 

As a NASA science publication {Apollo 14: Science at 
Fra MaurOy 1971, p. 17) tells us: “ The Moon reacted like 
a gong. For about three hours it vibrated and these vibra¬ 
tions traveled to a depth of from 22-25 miles.” (Emphasis 

This despite the fact that the vehicle crashed more than 
108 miles away from the Apollo 14 instrument site! 

Similarly, the crash of the lunar landing craft after the 
Apollo 14 astronauts had returned safely to the command 
module Kitty Hawk caused the Moon’s bell to be rung. 
The empty ascent stage, which weighed 4850 pounds, hit 
with a force equal to the explosion of 1600 pounds of TNT. 
This time the tremors reverberated around the Moon for 
90 minutes. 

This NASA publication says: “This minor moonquake 
marked a scientific milestone. It was the first time any 
event, manmade or natural, was recorded by a network 
of two seismic stations on the Moon.” 

Later observations (made possible when three different 
seismic stations on the Moon recorded a man-made impact 
—Apollo 12, Apollo 14, and another left by Apollo 15 as¬ 
tronauts at the Hadley-Apennine landing site) indicated 
that seismic signals traveled over 700 miles from the 
Apollo 15 impact site to a seismometer on the Sea of 
Storms, that great distance away, and then all the way 
to the seismometers at the Fra Mauro highlands. Scientists 
admit that on Earth similar signals produced by such an 
impact probably would not have traveled more than a 
few miles at the most. Nor would they have lasted more 
than a minute or so at the most. Certainly not for hours. 

Unquestionably, the Earth’s interior, which is solid 
rock, is different from the Moon’s, which seems to be 
more like a hollow sphere. Dr. Latham, principal investiga¬ 
tor of the seismic experiment, admits that the Moon’s 
strange behavior continued to baffle scientists, who have 


found no counterpart on our planet Earth. Apparently this 
is because the Moon is so different interiorly. 

In fact, scientists readily admitted that seismic evidence 
does strongly point to the fact that the Moon is rigid and 
cold on the interior, with no molten lava core. On Earth 
similar seismic waves are damped out and absorbed by the 
planet’s great mass and by the Earth’s molten core. Scien¬ 
tists know, however, that a hollow Moon—either com¬ 
pletely hollow or with just an inner hollow layer all the 
way around—would behave as the Moon does . 

All man-made crashes into the lunar surface producing 
moonquakes ended up with similar results. Indeed, after one 
impact the Moon rang for over four hours! 

However, impressive as these hits were, they do not 
prove in the orthodox scientist’s mind that the Moon is 
completely hollow. At least across the center. Other seismic 
tests have produced peculiar results, leading a few to 
believe that the Moon may be solid to the center. How¬ 
ever, if the Moon is a spaceship, then, as expected, it would 
have all kinds of artificial structures on the inside, includ¬ 
ing, as we shall see, two seismic bfelts that at least one lead¬ 
ing scientist from NASA says could be two huge girderlike 
blocks of metal 1000 kilometers long! Would not such 
constructions foul up any conclusions about whether the 
Moon is solid or has a core? 

One problem is that the present seismometers on the 
Moon were placed too close together. If they were farther 
apart they would be much more effective in accomplishing 
the feat of proving once and for all whether the Moon is 
hollow. As one astronomer from a Midwest observatory 
told a radio audience, discussing my book Our Mysterious 
Spaceship Moon } our satellite might very well be hollow. 
However, the evidence from present seismic equipment is 
unfortunately not quite clear or conclusive, simply be¬ 
cause they are too close together to get a true readout be¬ 
tween the primary (p) and secondary (s) waves. 

If the Moon is completely hollow across the center then 
the primary waves would not cut completely across the 
center of the Moon, but the secondary waves would race 
around the outer shell. The time difference could establish 
the elusive proof that the Moon is (or is not) hollow. 

The answer to this question, of course, hinges on an- 

other key question: Does the Moon have any core? 
Science reporter Richard Lewis said that “Urey and others 
insisted that the Moon could not have a core because of its 
lower density, but some geophysicists were not convinced/' 
(The Voyages of Apollo.) 

Scientists were hoping to have proof once and for all 
through the impact of a large meteor whose reflected waves 
would indicate whether a core did or did not exist. 

Fortunately, scientists got a once-in-a-million-years mir¬ 
acle when a large meteor, which Apollo scientists dubbed 
“a whopper/' slammed into the Moon on May 13, 1972, 
with the energy equivalent of about 200 tons of TNT. But, 
surprisingly, although the impact sent seismic shock waves 
down through the crust and well into the Moon’s inner 
layers, the “whopper” did not send any reflective waves 

Dr. Latham, NASA’s director of the seismic project, 
commenting on this unusual turn of events, said: “We have 
been searching for a signal—energy which would have gone 
down to the core, and bounced back up as a reflector.” 
The whopper should have gone down to the lunar core 
and bounced back up, but it did not. Scientists wondered 
why it didn’t. Could it be another indication that, as Dr. 
Urey suspects, the Moon has no core? That it is in fact, as 
the Soviet scientists tell us, hollow? (Science News, July 

Dr. Urey does tell us that “transverse seismic waves are 
not reflected back because it is felt that the soft structure 
of the middle of the Moon absorbed them.” However, as 
we have seen, there is much evidence that the Moon is 
rigid at great depths. Could it not be that these shock waves 
are not reflected back simply because the Moon is wholly 
or at least in part hollow? Or are our scientists having great 
difficulties divining the inside of the Moon because it is not 
entirely natural? Irving Michelson pointed out in Man On 
the Moon (Eugene Rabanivich, ed. Basic Books, 1969) 
that “it is a curious fact that although the moon’s rotational 
motion has been very accurately known for nearly three 
centuries, attempts to infer values of the inertia moments 
have been notoriously unsuccessful.” Couldn’t this be the 

It should also be remembered that if the Moon really is 


a spaceship scientists must expect all kinds of artificial 
construction on the interior. (Later we shall see there is 
evidence of this.) Hence, the nature of the reflective waves 
and seismic waves in general would be very confusing. 
And, as we have seen, that has been exactly the case. 

For instance, an early motion study indicated that the 
Moon was hollow. The coefficient of moment of inertia, 
which is critical for understanding the density distribution 
of the lunar interior, yielded an early value (0.6) implying 
a hollow Moon. Subsequent studies have conflicted with 
this result. But again we point out that an unknown variety 
of internal constructions could be upsetting the correct 
data. This should be taken into consideration in arriving at 
any correct conclusion about the true nature of the Moon. 

For many studies indicate that the Moon is hollow. Its 
extremely low density indicated it might be. H. P. Wilkins 
claimed it was, at least to a large measure. The early Mac¬ 
Donald motion studies and the later Solomon gravitational- 
field studies indicated it might be. Impact shock waves 
which vibrated through the Moon for up to four hours 
indicate that it is hollow. So though the problem remains 
unresolved, any further studies should take the Vasin- 
Shcherbakov hollow-Moon theory and possible artificial 
spaceship construction into consideration in arriving at a 
true picture about our Moon. 

Amazingly, there is some indirect evidence that our 
space agency officials are taking the “hollow” problem of 
the Moon more seriously than they are letting the public 
know. For it is interesting and, we believe, important to 
note that Dr. Farouk El Baz, one of NASA’s leading scien¬ 
tists before he went to the Smithsonian Institute as director 
of space research, claims that NASA suspected hollows did 
indeed exist within the Moon and admits that our govern¬ 
ment ordered and carried out certain experiments on the 
Moon to determine if they did. He claims that such experi¬ 
ments, which were not publicly announced, were held in 
the strictest secrecy. Says El Baz: “There are many un¬ 
discovered caverns suspected to exist beneath the surface 
of the Moon. Several experiments have been flown to the 
Moon to see if there actually were such caverns.” {Saga, 
March 1974, p. 36.) 

No results have ever been announced. In fact, even the 


experiment was kept secret—at least until El Baz made his 
public statement in an interview with Saga magazine, one 
of America’s leading journals, which is in the forefront of 
UFO investigation, and has also been effective in penetrat¬ 
ing our government’s secrecy in the space field. 

Why all this secrecy? Is it because our government and 
its space agency, along with our military, consider (con¬ 
trary to public knowledge) that hollow areas exist inside 
our Moon—that possibly alien bases, as some suspect, exist 
in these underground Moon hollows? Did alien beings take 
advantage of these hollows to create, as Soviet scientists 
speculate, millions more square miles? Or did they perhaps 
hollow out the central area of the Moon completely? 

In the book Man On the Moon Irving Michelson points 
out that “from studies of the translational motion of the 
moon” (i.e., motion of its center of mass) there exists evi¬ 
dence of “the non-uniformity of the internal mass distribu¬ 
tion within the moon,” which indicates that “the densest 
regions of the moon are nearest to its surface, in what has 
been termed the ‘hollow moon’ hypothesis.” But, objects 
Michelson, “the apparent density inversion needed to pro¬ 
vide consistency in the theory of the moon’s orbital mo¬ 
tion, termed the lunar theory, is not only unfamiliar but 
wholly unacceptable on a physical-mechanical basis—a 
hollow shell of this type would necessarily collapse.” 

In answer to Michelson’s objections, naturally it is “un¬ 
familiar,” for it is not natural—we are dealing with a world 
that is not completely natural but partially artificial. Of 
course, it is unacceptable on a natural physical basis. But 
this is something that apparently orthodox scientists never 
thought of (until our Soviet theorists, that is): that we 
may be dealing with a hybrid world—part natural and part 

As to the last objection, that a hollow Moon is “wholly 
unacceptable . . . [because] a hollow shell of this type 
would necessarily collapse,” we point out that the Moon, 
as we shall see, has an extremely strong metallic inner 
shell—the hull of a spaceship! And so Michelson’s objec¬ 
tions fall. 

And so the evidence of a hollow Moon stands! 


The surface of the Moon is a dark gray, gunmetal 
gray. It looks like molten lead that has been shot with 

BBs . 

—Astronaut James Irwin, Apollo 15 



• What are the strange circular dark areas of the Moon 
and why do they not seem to be placed randomly across 
the surface of the Moon? 

• Why is the far side of the Moon so different from the 
near, or Earth, side? Why are the strange lunar seas virtu¬ 
ally nonexistent on the Moon’s far side? 

• Why is the Moon so pockmarked with craters and, more 
significantly, why are they so uniformly shallow? Why do 
two Soviet scientists think that this indicates that the Moon 
has an artificially constructed outer shell? 

• Why are the maria so loaded with metals and metallic 
elements—titanium, yttrium, and other refractory metals 
which require high temperatures to melt? 

• Why do Soviet researchers reach such a drastic conclu¬ 
sion that the Moon’s maria are in fact the evidence of the 
hollowing-out and reinforcing process in the reconversion 
of the natural world into a huge spaceship by unknown 
alien beings? 

• Why do our scientists find it extremely difficult to ac¬ 
count for the high amount of metals like iron and titanium 
in the Moon’s dark areas? 


• How do the scientists account for the fact that the 
Moon’s outer surface somehow reached more than 4000 °F.? 


• Why do scientists even today find it impossible to ac¬ 
count for the formation of the maria? Why do all the 
theories have fatal flaws? 

• Why do some scientists suggest that the Moon’s maria 
were formed by a special kind of volcanic action that sci¬ 
entists of Earth are not familiar with? 

• Why does the Moon’s surface give evidence of formation 
by artificially induced volcanic action? 

• How do scientists account for the pure metallic elements 
found in lunar samples (such as pure titanium, used on 
Earth in the manufacture of spacecraft and supersonic 
jets), which seem to be in such great abundance in the 

• How do scientists account for the shocking and un¬ 
believable discovery of pure metallic particles in lunar 
samples? How do they explain the presence of pure iron 
particles, especially pure iron that does not rust? Why does 
this indicate a manufacturing process from a technology 
well beyond man’s? 

• How do scientists account for the fact that they cannot 
reproduce lunar materials even in our most advanced scien¬ 
tific labs? 

• Why are all the maria so metal-rich? 

• How do scientists account for the fact that on the Moon 
denser materials are on the surface? How do they explain 
how heavier materials can flow to the top of the Moon? 
Is this not seemingly impossible unless artificial construc¬ 
tion methods were used? 

• Why does the Moon have such a thick outer shell, melted 
down to great depths? How does one get a 65-kilometer- 
thick crust without melting most of the Moon? And if melt¬ 
ing occurred—as evidence indicates it did—then how could 
the Moon’s interior today be so relatively cool? 

• How does the Moon give indications that “some force 
or forces” rearranged the Moon’s outer surface? What 
force brought about the significant redistribution of the 
Moon’s crustal interior? 


Anyone who peers at the Moon through a telescope is 
impressed at how different this satellite world is from the 
lush verdurous and water-covered Earth. The barren Moon 
appears to be dominated by two rugged features: crater and 
maria, those strangely level, circular dark areas that Earth- 
bound man once mistakenly thought were oceans of water. 
Though we now know that these dark, strangely level 
regions appear to be oceans of lava, man is still at a loss 
to adequately explain how they came into existence or even 
what they are. Even before we went to the Moon some 
guessed that these weirdly dark splotches, which remind 
one of freshly cleaned blackboards, are actually loaded 
with heavy dark mineral ores, such as iron and titanium. 

Our sea-laden world is three-fourths covered with water. 
The Moon is covered with seas of apparently once molten 
rock. The question is, where did all the lava come from 
that created these immense oceans of lava covering a third 
of the Moon's near side? An extremely hot interior? Or 
from impaction of huge meteors or asteroids? 

Still another mystery lurks here, raised by the Moon 
probes—that of the differing far side of the Moon, which 
has no extensive maria. 


Not once within mankind’s memory has the far side of 
our Moon shown its face to Earth, and most scientists as¬ 
sumed it would be no different from the side that is fa¬ 
miliar to us. While it is true that a few thought it would be 
radically different, it is clear that they were speculating 
wildly. And some were really wild. 

For instance, Hanson, a Danish astronomer of the eigh¬ 
teenth century, came to believe that the far side was in¬ 
habited. In studying the movements of the Moon, he had 
found one tiny discrepancy that he could not explain: The 
Moon did not appear uniform in density to him. To ex¬ 
plain this Hanson theorized that one hemisphere of the 
Moon was slightly more massive than the other. He con¬ 
cluded that all the atmosphere of the lunar world (which 
he insisted the Moon had), as well as all its oceans and 
seas, had been drawn to the far, hidden side. He also was 


convinced that this side could very well be inhabited and 
probably teemed with cities. 

Hanson was, of course, mercilessly ridiculed by his 
contemporaries for his way-out notions. One anonymous 
English poet even penned some fancy lines in his honor: 

Oh Moon, lovely Moon with the beautiful face, 
Careering throughout the bound’ries of space, 
Wherever I see you, I think in my mind— 

Shall I ever, O ever, behold your behind? 

Most scientists still remained convinced that the far side 
of the Moon was no different from the side they had 
studied over the centuries. Then came the Soviet space 
probes which first photographed it, and the world was 
amazed to discover how different the far side was. No 
serious scientist had expected to find any cities or Moon- 
men, but what piqued their curiosity and raised several 
more tantalizing questions was how startlingly different the 
back side really was. It was far more rugged and far more 
pockmarked with craters and riddled with mountains. And, 
strangely enough, it had few maria, or seas of lava. 

Why should these massive, dark plains be so prevalent 
on the Earth side and so lacking on the far side? This 
strange dichotomy has mystified scientists since man began 
to extensively see and photograph it. The mystery still 
baffles scientists today. 

The inference, of course, was that these huge, circular 
seas could not have been formed by chance meteor and 
asteroid impaction; these bodies would necessarily have hit 
at random all over the Moon. The evidence seemed instead 
to indicate that the maria on the near side were formed by 
a welling up of volcanically produced lava from deep 
within the Moon. And here the problems really began. 

Another conundrum was the fact that the far side has 
far more rugged and mountainous exterior, with many more 
craters. And this brings us back to the mystery of the 
craters themselves, their strange shallowness and the prob¬ 
lem of just how they were formed. 

Most scientists are convinced that lunar craters were 
blasted out by celestial bombs, all right, hitting with the 
force of many tons of explosives. But they were of the 


atomic variety in explosive equivalency—huge meteors, 
asteroids, or comets. The explosive force of a huge meteor 
smashing into the Moon at speeds of up to 30,000 miles 
per second would be equivalent to millions of tons of TNT 
—actually dwarfing to insignificance the tiny atomic blast 
that left Hiroshima a desolate crater. Undoubtedly in some 
cases the powerful explosions on the Moon were hundreds 
of times greater than the first bombs detonated on Earth. 

It has been calculated by Soviet scientists that a meteor 
of one million tons is equal in explosive force to a single 
megaton atomic bomb, which is about fifty times the Hiro¬ 
shima size. Yet we know that gigantic meteors weighing one 
million tons have clobbered the lunar surface, leaving only 
broad vast shallow holes in the Moon’s skin. 

Why this should be has been a puzzle to astronomers. 
Vasin and Shcherbakov suspected that the answer to this 
mystery lay in the Moon itself. The consistency of shallow¬ 
ness of Moon craters puzzled them. Despite their size— 
some of them fantastically large by Earth standards—al¬ 
most without exception even the greatest gaping holes are 
surprisingly shallow. Even craters *100 miles or more across 
appear to be no deeper than a mile or two. Why? 

What could be the reason for this strange phenomenon? 
Certainly meteors 50 to 100 miles in diameter blasting into 
the Moon and exploding with the force of millions of 
atomic bombs should have torn deep holes in its surface. 
The terrific impact of a meteor dozens of miles across 
colliding with our Moon should have produced an explosion 
so fierce that holes many miles deep would have been 
gouged out. But nowhere has any celestial missile done this. 

Even conservative estimates of expected results indicate 
that meteors 10 miles or more in diameter—larger than 
most that have hit Earth—should have penetrated to a 
depth equal to four to five times its diameter. Yet the 
deepest crater we know of on the Moon is the Gagarin 
Crater, which, though 186 miles across, is less than 4 miles 
down. Most are like Clavius, which is a whopping 146 
miles across but only 2—3 miles deep, and this despite the 
fact that all of Switzerland and Luxembourg could be 
placed inside it, it is so large. There is no question that 
whatever hit here should have gouged a great hole scores 
of miles deep. Why didn’t it? ^ 




Shows: (i) How moon is lop-sided 

(2) Iron-rich inner layer— 

Could this be reinforced inner hull 
made from metallic-rich rock? 

Adapted from Physics Today , March 1974. 

The answer according to some scientists lies in the fact 
that most craters on the Moon were not caused by celestial 
bombardment but are volcanic in origin. However, the vast 
majority of lunar scientists having studied lunar crater 
characteristics held forth the impact formation of the origin 
of craters. Dr. Harold Urey, one of the world’s most 
knowledgeable lunar experts, stated the majority opinion 
in 1956 when he claimed that the vast majority were caused 
by celestial crashes. 


Our Soviet spaceship speculators suggest that the answer 
to the shallow-crater mystery lies in the Moon’s make-up. 
The shallow craters, Vasin and Shcherbakov insist, would 
perhaps be strange to a normal satellite, but the Moon is 
a “remade” world with an inner and outer shell of “armour 

They note: “if one assumes that when the meteorite 
strikes the outer covering of the Moon, this plays the role 
of a buffer and the foreign body finds itself up against an 
impenetrable spherical barrier. Only slightly denting the 
20 mile layer of armour plating, the explosion flings bits 
of its "coating’ far and wide. 

“Bearing in mind that the Moon’s defense coating is, 
according to our calculations, 2.5 miles thick, one sees that 
this is approximately the maximum depth of the craters.” 

Much of this outer portion of the Moon’s armor pro¬ 
tection, these spaceship theorists point out, is furnished by 
the maria—those strange huge dark areas of filled-in 
metallic rock that can be seen with the naked eye on any 
clear night that the Moon is visible in Earth skies. 

These huge circular seas or maria help form the familiar 
Man in the Moon which many Earthlings have come to see 
in our companion world. On our very first trip to the Moon 
we landed in the left eye of the Man in the Moon—the 
Sea of Tranquility. The Sea of Rains makes up the right 

Some of these strange dark seas are immense in size. 


The Sea of Storms, for instance, is over 2,000,000 square 
miles, which makes it larger than the entire Mediterranean 
Sea! The Sea of Serenity, on which we landed our Apollo 
spacecraft, is about the size of Great Britain and France 
put together. And considering that the Moon is a much 
smaller world than Earth—about one fourth the size— 
makes them much more impressive in size. 

Another maria, the Sea of Rains, embraces an area that 
in the United States would extend in one direction from 
Michigan to North Carolina and from South Carolina and 
Georgia to Arkansas and Iowa in the other. This vast sea, 
which is about 750 miles across, covers more than 340,000 
square miles. Before we went to the Moon most scientists 
speculated that this immense sea was produced when an 
asteroid the size of the island of Cyprus collided with the 
Moon and exploded there. 

Although some of the people in the past thought these 
dark areas of the Moon were huge seas, most modern 
scientists felt that they were in fact huge seas of lava. 
Others were skeptical of this theory that they were formed 
from immense lava flows which poured out of the Moon’s 
extremely hot interior when the lunar globe was very young. 
Where could all the lava come from, many objected, to 
create such immense oceans of lava that cover one third 
of the Moon on the Earth side? Many scientists did not 
believe that the Moon ever had gotten that hot inside, 
maintaining that the Moon was formed cold. Why did 
they hold this? Because they calculated the Moon was too 
tiny a world to generate the kind of heat necessary to pro¬ 
duce such vast lava flows. Some of these scientists were 
convinced that the answer to the formation of the maria 
lay in the celestial missiles that bombarded the planetoid— 
meteors, comets, and asteroids which, exploding upon con¬ 
tact, threw vast quantities of liquid lava over the face of 
this world. Yet there existed strong evidence that maria 
were formed by lava welling up from its interior. More¬ 
over, the maria do not appear to be randomly scattered 
across the Moon’s face; most of them lie in one quadrant 
of the Moon’s Earth side. This militated against the 
random-peppering theory of impactists. 

And this brings us to yet another mystery of the maria. 
For another peculiarity of these peculiar lunar features is 


their distribution. Many are circular in form, conforming 
strangely enough to the general spherical shape of this mys¬ 
tery world. Their distribution was also unusual—almost all 
of the Moon’s maria on the Earth side of the Moon and 
four fifths of them on the far side lie in one quadrant—in 
the right-hand section or area of the Moon. 

Scientists on Earth were still arguing how the maria on 
the Moon got there when our astronauts landed. They were 
in for some shocking surprises, uncovering evidence that 
indicated to the two Soviet scientists that the maria were 
not natural formations. 

Shcherbakov and Vasin became convinced from this 
evidence that the maria were in fact created by artificial 
means, probably by “Moon beings” pouring out huge inner 
portions of lunar lava and metal not only to hollow out 
portions of their inner world but to reinforce their metallic 
armor and prevent it from being damaged by the “impact 
of celestial torpedoes” crashing into it from time to time. 

Vasin and Shcherbakov wrote: “The Moon’s dry seas 
are in fact areas from which the protective coating was 
tom from the armour cladding. To make good the damage 
to these vast tracts . . . [they flooded] the areas with its 
‘cement’ resulting in flat stretches that look like seas to the 
terrestrial observer. 

“The Moon’s population presumably took the necessary 
steps to remedy the effects of meteorite bombardment, for 
example, patching up rents in the outer shield covering the 
lunar shell. For such purposes a substance from the lunar 
core was probably used, a kind of cement being made from 
it. After processing this would be piped to the surface sites 
where it was required.” 


If these spaceship theorists are right then a number of 
mysteries of the Moon’s maria would be resolved—for 
instance, how they were formed and why they have such 
seeming nonrandom distribution. Another puzzlement 
would then become understandable too—the strange level¬ 
ness of the seas. For as science reporter Henry Cooper 
points out in his book Apollo on the Moon (Dial, 1969), 


one of the questions that troubled NASA scientists was the 
answer to the mystery of “how were the maria leveled so 
neatly?” Artificial formation by alien intelligence would, 
of course, help make understandable what Cooper refers 
to as the “billiard-table standards of the maria.”. 


What evidence led these two Soviet scientists to such a 
dramatic conclusion—that the maria are in fact the evi¬ 
dence of the hollowing out and repairing of a huge space¬ 
ship world? 

The evidence they offer is fragmentary, based almost 
entirely on the fact that Moon rocks contained large 
amounts of metallic elements—titanium, chromium, and 
zirconium, highly refractory metals which are not only 
heat-resistant but mechanically strong and have many ad¬ 
mirable anticorrosive properties. Say Shcherbakov and 
Vasin; “A combination of them all would have enviable 
resistance to heat and the ability to stand up to the means 
of aggression, and could be used on Earth for linings for 
electrical furnaces.” 

In fact, the indisputable evidence that great amounts of 
such metals were found in Moon rocks, though impressive, 
is about the only evidence they offered for this bizarre, 
radical thesis. Admittedly, such a finding is difficult to 
“explain away,” but was any other evidence uncovered by 
America’s Moon probes that would support this wild 

What did we find when we went to the Moon? First of 
all, the Moon rocks that we brought back for analysis were 
rather puzzling. Dr. Eugene Shoemaker of the California 
Institute of Technology, chief geological interpreter of the 
Apollo results for NASA, confessed that the Moon samples 
raised “ten times as many good questions as they are 
likely to answer.” 

Our first explorers brought back samples from the mys¬ 
terious Sea of Tranquility. The rocks from here astounded 
the scientists who so eagerly and carefully examined them. 
It was found that they—and presumably the solidified lava 


“seas’* from which they were taken—had heavy concen¬ 
trations of tough, high-heat-resistant elements like titanium, 
which indicated to scientists that the Moon’s outer layers 
were melted by some source of heat that was very intense. 

NASA scientists estimate that parts of the Moon’s outer 
shell must have reached at least 4000°C. to melt and fuse 
with rock the kinds of elements found there. The perplexing 
problem is .this: How could the surface of the Moon have 
reached such extremely high temperatures? Scientists frank¬ 
ly were at a loss to adequately answer this question. 

Some of the Apollo samples proved to be ten times as 
rich in titanium as the most titanium-rich rocks ever found 
on our planet Earth. But not only titanium was found in 
these lunar samples, but also zirconium, yttrium, beryllium, 
and similar rare, anticorrosive, temperature-resistant metal¬ 
lic elements in perplexingly high percentages. These are 
among the most durable elements known to man and have 
admirable heat-resistant qualities, requiring extremely high 
temperatures to melt. Yet lunar samples indicate that they 
are present in shockingly great abundance in the lunar 
outer crust. In fact, one scientific journal (Science News, 
August 16, 1969) states that the outer surface of the Moon 
seems to contain titanium, yttrium, and zirconium in 
“amounts higher than present estimates either in earthly 
rock or estimates of elemental abundance in the universe.” 

Dr. Harold Urey confessed freely to his colleagues that 
he “was terribly puzzled by the rocks from the moon, and 
in particular by their titanium content.” To him this was 
a “mind-blowing” discovery. He admitted candidly: “I just 
don’t know how to account for the titanium.” (Henry 
Cooper, Moon Rocks t Dial, 1970.) 

But Urey was not alone. For not a single scientist could 
solve the conundrum. To make matters worse, many scien¬ 
tists, like Urey, had concluded before the Moon expeditions 
that our satellite was essentially a cold body, that it had 
never been hot enough for any significant lava flows be¬ 
cause it just was not large enough to produce enough heat 
to cause lava flows to any great extent. Now scientists had 
to figure out how such a small world could have generated 
temperatures as the data indicated it once had. It was most 
embarrassing for Urey, because before Apollo he had in- 


sisted that he could prove mathematically that the Moon 
was too small an orb to generate the kind of heat necessary 
to produce si gnifi cant volcanic lava flows. 

Another respected scientist, Dr. S. Ross Taylor, the 
geochemist in charge of chemical analysis, pointed out: 
“The problem is that on the Moon maria the size of Texas 
had to be covered with melted rock containing fluid tita¬ 
nium and one wouldn’t expect titanium ever to be hot 
enough or viscous enough to do that even on earth—and 
no one had ever suggested that the Moon was hotter than 
earth.” {Moon Rocks.) 

What could have produced heat of such intensity? Scien¬ 
tists do not know how it could have been done naturally . 
And here is the key. For all orthodox scientific consider¬ 
ations fall short of the mark in solving this problem. How¬ 
ever, if scientists accept the unorthodox “spaceship” view 
of our two Soviet scientists that this intense heat was used 
to artificially process great amounts of refractory metals to 
flood the outer areas of the Moon, then the problem dis¬ 

But need we necessarily turn to artificial construction 
by alien intelligence to solve the problem? No, for there is 
another theory, common even before we went to the Moon, 
which some scientists thought answered the difficulties. 


Long before man journeyed to this mystery world, scien¬ 
tists had wondered how the Moon could have generated 
the kind of heat necessary to pour forth oceans of lava 
and cover one third of the surface area of this world. Now 
the problem suddenly became much more complex, for 
evidence indicated that tremendous amounts of heat- 
resistant metallic elements existed in the maria. How then 
could scientists account for this fantastic heat, which 
seemingly eliminated natural volcanic action? Some claimed 
that it could have been done by celestial bombardment of 
gigantic meteors, asteroids, or even comets. 

One leading scientist who came to this conviction was 
Zdenak Kopal of the Department of Astronomy at the 


University of Manchester. This leading lunar light exam¬ 
ined the early Apollo evidence and in the prestigious pub¬ 
lication The Moon, A Physics and Astronomy of the Moon 
(Academic Press, 2nd Ed., 1971 edition) insisted that the 
great plains of the Moon could hardly have been lava flows 
from the deep interior but were probably produced instead 
by the tremendous energy generated by great cosmic col¬ 
lisions of meteors and the like, perhaps along with some 
heat produced by radioactive elements concentrated in the 
near surface areas. 

Is this the solution to the seeming insoluble problems of 
the Moon’s maria? As we have seen, the impact theory 
has its weaknesses too. For one thing, it is hard to conceive 
how one third of the Moon’s near side just happened to be 
hit that hard by random celestial bombardment while the 
far side, though presumably subject to the same bombard¬ 
ment, was hardly touched. As we have seen, the far side 
has hardly any maria areas, while the near side is full of 
them. Furthermore, if radioactivity were involved in the 
heat-producing process, the far side with its much thicker 
crust should contain much more of the radioactive elements 
that helped to produce lunar lava flows. Yet it did not— 
they are strangely absent there. 

Also, evidence from the Moon’s maria itself indicates 
that these huge circular seas of lava were formed from an 
upwelling of volcanically produced material generated deep 
inside the Moon. 

Nevertheless, the impacting of celestial missiles as the 
cause of maria did seem to be the only answer to this 

However, in 1976 the great lunar expert Kopal published 
his book The Moon in the Post Apollo Era (Reidel, 1974), 
updating with the latest lunar evidence and findings what 
happened to our Moon. Not surprisingly, Kopal completely 
changed his mind, now discounting the possibility that the 
Moon’s dark circular plains were caused by celestial im- 
pactings. Kopal confesses, “it was clearly not the impact 
heat which melted the magmas now covering the mare 
floors; for the latter must have exuded from the interior at 
a considerable later time.” The dating of Moon rocks and 
other evidence had led him to this conclusion. He adds: 
“A quest for the source of the basaltic magma we now see 


spread over the surface of the mare basins should, there¬ 
fore, lead us back again into the lunar interior.” 

Kopal points out that immense difficulties “are encoun¬ 
tered, however, when we consider the mechanism, which 
could have driven out such lavas to the surface. . . He 
shows that the structure of rocks taken from these mare 
areas indicate that they were differentiated geologically, 
cooked under pressures that indicate that they came from 
depths of not less than 150 kilometers. This is deeper by 
far than “the depth of volcanic chambers” on our planet 
Earth. Kopal freely admits the immense difficulties of get¬ 
ting lava from such great depths inside our Moon to the 
surface, saying that “to pump molten material from such 
depths up the surface calls for an expenditure of energy 
whose source is not easily apparent.” ( The Moon in the 
Post Apollo Era .) 

So not only can’t scientists find out how the Moon could 
have generated the kind of intense heat necessary to melt 
high-temperature metals like titanium, amalgamating it with 
rock, but they cannot figure out what force or energy could 
have pumped such vast oceans of lava to the surface, spew¬ 
ing it forth in veritable seas across the outer portions of 
the lunar planetoid. 


Scientists today continue to wonder where the energy for 
such large circular seas of lava could have come from. Did 
all strangely dark lava come from the natural volcanic 
action of an internally hot Moon? Dr. Gerald Wasserburg 
of the California Institute of Technology points out this 
presents other serious problems in light of the established 
fact that our Moon is a relatively cold body today. Before 
scientists can accept this theory, as Wasserburg points out, 
“we must attempt to understand what the precise mech¬ 
anism is by which the thermal energies of the Moon were 
shut down to prevent further volcanism.” Wasserburg indi¬ 
cates that we have here another “impossible” situation. 

One of the major theories as to how the Moon could 
have accumulated enough heat to produce these huge seas 


of lava suggests the accumulation of radioactive elements 
in the surface areas, generating enough heat to melt internal 
sections of the Moon and pour forth these then-liquid lava 
oceans to the surface. But as the journal Scientific American 
points out, this too has serious problems, for the heat pro¬ 
duced by radioactive material found in abundance on the 
Moon is slow and gradual. Evidence indicates that the 
Moon melted rapidly so that the lava became “very fluid 
and flowed over these areas quickly.” So leading Moon ex¬ 
perts hold that other methods must be thought of. 

But what other solutions are there? Lunar experts them¬ 
selves have offered compelling reasons why impact melting 
is out. Now apparently the only other solution, internal 
volcanic action, cannot be the answer either. Which way 
shall scientists turn? To the Soviet spaceship theory? Should 
we point out that all problems, puzzles,. and conflicts dis¬ 
appear in light of the Soviet artificial-Moon theory? 



In the midst of all these contradictions and conflictions 
one NASA scientist suggested that maybe it was all so con¬ 
fusing because scientists were looking at “a special kind 
of volcanism.” 

Exactly! It is now clear that what took place on the 
Moon is a volcanism artificially induced, using (as we shall 
see) some kind of radioactive melting done in an artificially 
created way, whereby, aliens might have mixed great 
amounts of metallic elements from the Moon’s deep in¬ 
terior with molten rock. For this is no ordinary rock, as 
assayed lunar samples have proven. It is full of metals. 

No wonder—and this television watchers of these his¬ 
torical expeditions may well recall—our astronauts, trying 
to drill through the maria, found to their frustration and 
scientists’ amazement that they could hardly penetrate the 
tough peculiar skin of this world. This despite the fact that 
they had specially designed drills that could go through 
just about anything. On several occasions the astronauts 
using all their strength could hardly penetrate this tough 
material, and for all their efforts merely got down a few 


inches! Here again is more evidence that this is not a nat¬ 
ural world. But this is just the beginning of such evidence. 
For the mind-boggling constructions on the Moon were to 
yield amazing evidence that these are just what they seem 
to be: constructs! 


Admittedly, the artificial-Moon theory is the easy an¬ 
swer—almost the obvious answer—to the enigmas and 
problems offered by the Moon. But is there any hard evi¬ 
dence to prove this far-out theory, other than the fact that 
it dissolves the immense difficulties of this difficult-to-under- 
stand world? Just because there seems to be no natural way 
to explain how this complex companion of our Earth came 
into being is not sufficient ground to label it a spaceship. 
Surprisingly, such evidence has been unearthed (or should 
we say “unmooned”?). 

It has been definitely established, as we have seen, that 
these strangely level, dark lunar plains are loaded with dark 
minerals like titanium, a metallic element used on Earth in 
the manufacture of supersonic aircraft and even spacecraft 

This startling find, however, is only the beginning! 

For scientists scrutinizing the precious treasure of 837 
pounds of the Moon (and undoubtedly it is the most care¬ 
fully, meticulously, and thoroughly examined and analyzed 
group of rocks man has ever looked at) have discovered, 
much to their amazement, actual pure metal particles in 
the lunar samples! 

General Electric Research and Development Center 
issued a scientific report declaring that pure iron particles 
have been found in lunar samples. When this startling re¬ 
port first came out it caused many scientists to question the 
validity of GE’s findings. For on the surface it would seem 
to be scientifically impossible. Pure iron particles found in 
nature? However, the findings have been since verified by 
the University of California (Berkeley), proving beyond 
a doubt the presence of pure iron particles in lunar sam¬ 
ples. (New York Times , January 7, 1970.) 

Could they not, however, have come from meteorites? 
No, insist the scientific experts. John Noble Wilford, sci- 


ence editor of the New York Times , points out: “The 
moon’s iron particles apparently did not come from meteor¬ 
ites because the iron in meteorites occurs in an alloy with 
nickel.” ( New York Times , January 7, 1970.) 

Miraculously, Soviet remote-controlled, unmanned lunar 
probes (Zond 16-20) which have brought back tiny sam¬ 
ples of the Moon also found pure iron particles. In August 
1976 Soviet scientists brought back more treasures from 
the Moon—a soil sample from the Sea of Crisis. It was at 
this time that the Soviet government announced that their 
scientists had discovered pure iron particles in their lunar 
samples. They added something very important in their 
report: These lunar iron particles contain iron that does 
not rust! 

The Associated Press wire carried this brief but startling 
Soviet announcement: 

“Emphasizing the importance of lunar soil samples, an 
article in Pravda [official Soviet government news journal] 
revealed that the first successful automatic mission in 1970 
brought back particles of iron that ‘does not rust.’ ” Pure 
iron that does not rust is unknown on Earth. In fact, 
it cannot yet be even manufactured. Physicists and scien¬ 
tific experts claim they cannot understand how this is at 
all possible without some kind of manufacturing process 
being involved. They also point out that it is beyond our 
present Earth technology. Pure iron that does not rust is 
not found anywhere in a natural state. {Detroit Free Press, 
August 24,1976.) 

Unfortunately, the Pravda story passed over the stagger¬ 
ing implications in this discovery of pure iron that does 
not rust. Pravda merely comments: 

“If we understand how such iron is formed on the Moon 
and we can learn to manufacture it under earth conditions, 
this [discovery] would repay all the expenditures for space 
study,” according to a Soviet scientist. 

But this is not the end of the amazing story of metals 
found on the Moon. Cambridge University scientists have 
also found brass, mica, and amphibole in lunar material. 
And beyond this, the near-pure titanium that was found 
there stunned lunar experts. 

Scientists now know that it is the extraordinarily high 
amount of titanium which helps make the maria dark. The 


mineral in which titanium resides (illeminite) is black and 
opaque, and it imparts a dark color to the lunar lava. This 
black mineral is why these areas look so dark to man on 

Scientists have been doing lunar flip-flops trying to ex¬ 
plain the existence of pure titanium on the Moon. Science 
News carried one of these strained attempts. (January 17, 
1970.) The theory is that titanium darkens as it becomes 
“closer to pure metals.” Scientists theorize that maybe the 
solar wind is responsible for this wonder of wonders, per¬ 
haps by knocking atoms loose from their oxides, causing 
minerals such as titanium “to darken as they become closer 
to pure metals.” 

This is one scientific speculation which tries to account 
for the discovery of near-pure metals on the Moon—so 
pure that they seem almost to have been manufactured by 
some tremendously advanced technology. Even if we ac¬ 
cept this farfetched speculation—and the scientists who 
devised it admit themselves that it is just that—it still does 
not solve the other problems, such as how such intense 
heat could have been generated on this relatively tiny cold 
orb in our skies. 


The entire package of lunar samples from the maria— 
which were apparently cooked in extremely high temper¬ 
atures—has left scientists almost totally perplexed. They 
have studied these lunar samples minutely and as yet they 
are completely stumped to explain them. 

Dr. Robert Jastrow points this out in his article “The 
Moon is a Rosetta Stone.” ( New York Times Magazine , 
November 1969.) Here is another lunar impasse: “No 
pattern emerges from the discrepancies. The geochemists 
cannot see any way in which the materials of the Earth, 
even if worked over repeatedly by long-continued sequences 
of melting and remelting and recrystallization, could be 
made to yield the detailed composition of the Apollo 11 
rocks.” Like the pure iron which does not rust, they al- 


most seemed to have been manufactured—produced by a 
technology far beyond our own. 


Many areas of the Moon seem to be covered with metals, 
as astronaut James Irwin observed (see quote heading this 
chapter). In an ancient issue of the Scientific American 
(February 1927), following up an article on the peculiar- 
looking surface of the Moon, especially around the maria, 
one reader wrote a letter to the editor noting the similarity 
between these Moon surfaces and the surface of pure pro¬ 
cessed iron. He was an iron expert and he noted: “On 
examining scrap pile in an iron foundry, it is not uncom¬ 
mon to come across some pieces of iron exhibiting some 
of the structures seen on the Moon.” An interesting ob¬ 
servation, and it is striking that astronaut James Irwin of 
Apollo 15 described these same strangely dark areas in 
similar metallic terms. 

Scientists took note of the great amount of metals on the 
lunar surface too. In an article appearing in Science News 
(January 1, 1972) entitled “Migrating Metals On the 
Moon . . it is stated: “The movement of volatilized 
metals over the surface of the moon could be confusing in¬ 
terpretation of the ages of lunar samples.” 

Surface metals could be responsible for yet another 
strange lunar phenomenon. In fact, the Moon has been 
tipping man off for centuries, yet very few scientists have 
discerned this. As we have noted in Chapter 2, strange 
lights have been seen on the Moon over the past several cen¬ 
turies. As we indicated earlier, certainly not all of these 
could be in any way interpreted to be UFOs. Before man 
went to the Moon, the speculation of some scientists trying 
to explain these peculiar glows was that they might be 
generated on the Moon’s surface in some natural way. A 
few thought they might be caused by the peculiar surface 
of the lunar crust, which perhaps might possibly be loaded 
with metals. 

There was no question that some of these glows and 
lights were immense. In fact, science writer William Cor- 


liss, formerly with NASA says: “The Moon . . . unques¬ 
tionably luminesces over its entire sunlit face and reddish 
glows over areas as large as 50,000 square miles have been 
reported. These displays are most easily attributed to solar- 
induced luminescence. The highly localized, ruby red spots 
seen by Herschel, Kozyrev, Greenacre and many others 
may be either luminescence, volcanism, or some phenomen¬ 
on we do not yet recognize. Only time and the landing of 
astronaut-geologists will tell.” ( Mysteries of the Universe .) 

These glows have been verified by our astronauts. For 
instance, Apollo 11 astronauts did see strange glows in the 
crater Aristarchus, one of the areas where astronomers over 
the many decades have reported seeing strange luminescing 
on the Moon. Some described these glows as “a peculiar 
fluorescence on its wall.” 

Interestingly, this “luminous glow” seen by the astronauts 
was verified by several astronomic observers on Earth. The 
Institute for Space Research in Bochum, Germany, ob¬ 
served the very same glow that our Apollo 11 astronauts 
reported. And accounts of similar observations of the very 
same glows were made in Brazil, Ireland, and other far- 
flung areas of our planet. 

Dr. H. P. Wilkins ventured this explanation for these 
strange glows: 

“The only rational explanation would seem to be that in 
certain regions, the moon’s surface consists of materials 
which emits electrons under the influence of light or elec¬ 
tronic impact, or considerable deposits of metals , for ex¬ 
ample, iron , which act as deflectors of free electrons . The 
fluorescent effects may be due to electronic bombardment.” 
{Our Moon . Emphasis added.) 

Here is evidence of large amounts of metal existing in 
these very areas of the Moon where we later discovered 
them. What the great Wilkins suspected has been verified. 
The only question that remains is, how did it get there— 
not just the iron which has been found in pure form, but 
the other rare refractory metals that require such intense 
heat to melt, such as titanium. 


Soviet scientists claim that from their investigation, done 
mostly through remote-controlled retrieved samples, they 
conclude that the composition of the maria is essentially 
the same, although some undoubtedly have different pro¬ 
portions of titanium and other metallic elements. 

Our own research tends to verify this conclusion. NASA 
document Apollo 17: Preliminary Science Report states 
clearly: “All mare basalts have been found to be unusually 
rich in iron and sometimes rich in titanium.” 

We got an inkling of this in other ways besides direct 
analysis of lunar material. For instance, when the Apollo 
13 rocket stage (Saturn 5’s third stage) crashed into the 
Moon (it hit with a speed of 9300 mph), the Moon rever¬ 
berated, sending shock waves racing across the sphere at 
great speeds over vast distances. The Moon reverberated 
like a huge bell for over 3 hours 20 minutes. 

These prolonged vibrations reinforced the view that the 
lunar maria are “filled with material that respon3s very 
differently to shock waves than does the material forming 
the Earth.” ( New York Times, April 16, 1970.) What kind 
of material could cause this? 

We do know that material which contains heavy amounts 
of metal would convey tremors in such a manner. But 
couldn’t this be a natural characteristic of lunar material? 
Perhaps the material out of which the Moon is made just 
naturally reacts this way. 

On the contrary—studies show that it is just the opposite. 
For another complicating fact is that some lunar rocks 
react in just the opposite fashion. According to the highly 
respected publication Science (June 26, 1970), a study 
shows that the velocity of sound waves through many lunar 
rocks is “perplexingly low.” It is, in fact, approximately 
just one third that of Earth rocks. 

Edward Schreiber of Queens College and Orson L. 
Anderson of the Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory 
sought out various Earth materials with a sound velocity 
comparable to the lunar rocks, and found that a variety 
of Swiss, Norwegian, Italian, and Wisconsin cheeses fit 
the bill. 


Facetiously they point out that while the lunar rocks are 
about the density of cheese, this may readily be accounted 
for when one considers “how better aged the lunar ma¬ 
terials are.” 

Their findings, they added, suggest that perhaps “old 
hypotheses are best after all, [and] should not be lightly 

May we add, neither should any unorthodox theories— 
and in light of the facts, especially the unorthodox Soviet 
theory that the Moon may be a huge hollow spaceship! 


There is something else discovered about these strange 
dark regions of the outer Moon that indicates that the hand 
of alien intelligence was at work here. As we have already 
noted, evidence indicates that the maria are covered with 
material that is denser than the rest of the Moon. Walter 
Sullivan, former science editor of the New York Times , 
points out: “Furthermore, the Sea of Tranquility is covered 
with materia] that is considerably more dense than the 
average density of the Moon, deduced from its gravity. 
This is the reverse of what one would expect. On earth the 
lava that flows upwards and out onto the surface is the 
lighter component—not the heavier fraction.” (New York 
Times , November 9, 1969.) 

How do scientists explain how heavier materials can flow 
to the top of the surface of the Moon’s maria? They 

In fact, to be utterly frank about it, not only is this the 
reversal of what scientists expected, it just is not natural— 
not according to the way the laws of nature work. Heavier 
elements sink , not rise to the surface. The only way it can 
be explained is as the Soviets claim—that the maria, the 
dark areas of the Moon, were in some way artificially 

Even a little point like this, especially taking into con¬ 
sideration all the other evidence, leads the researcher to 
believe there was the hand of alien intelligence at work in 
the formation of the maria, even as our Soviet spaceship 
theorists insist. 



The Soviet scientists Vasin and Shcherbakov stated that 
they were convinced that the entire outer portions of the 
Moon and not just the maria formed the protective outer 
shell of the inner spaceship world. Is there any evidence 
to support this? 

Definitely. For now scientists know that for some strange 
reason the Moon has an unexplainably thick outer shell 
which apparently has been baked by some unknown intense 

This was first divined when a miracle happened. Dr. Gary 
Latham, who wanted to know more about the structure 
of our Moon’s interior and the thickness of the Moon’s 
crust, actually proposed exploding a nuclear device on the 
far side of the Moon to send strong shock waves all through 
the lunar interior. However, because of staunch opposition 
by other scientists and many scientific publications, he with¬ 
drew his suggestion. As it turned out, he didn’t need a 
nuclear bomb, for a miraculous event took place. The 
Moon was unexpectedly hit by a gigantic meteor. 

Lunar scientists with their sensitive seismometers on the 
Moon were awaiting such an event, hoping against hope 
for this unlikely hit to occur. But most scientists were 
realistically pessimistic, for they calculated that a meteor 
of such great size bangs into the Moon only about once in 
a million years or so. But then, on May 13, 1972, a 
“whopper” slammed into Luna with an impact of about 
200 tons of TNT. 

“It was a miracle of the first magnitude,” exclaimed Dr. 
Latham, NASA’s chief seismologist. (Science News, July 
1, 1972.) 

This miracle enabled lunar experts like Latham to deter¬ 
mine the thickness of the Moon’s outer crust. The data 
indicated it is about 60 kilometers (over 30 miles) thick. 
This shocked them. “This is twice as thick as the average 
crustal outer shell of any continent on Earth,” notes 

How did the Moon acquire such a thick, extremely tough 
exterior? It was somehow baked on. This in spite of the fact 
that our much smaller Moon (only about one fourth the 


size of our own planet) supposedly never could have 
heated up to any great extent- This is in itself a perplexing 

How then do scientists explain, even assuming the Moon 
could attain such high baking temperatures, such a great 
difference in crustal thickness compared to Earth? Again 
they are at a loss to say. It is just another in the long litany 
of lunar enigmas. 

More importantly, how do scientists explain the estab¬ 
lished fact that the crust of the Moon is made of material 
which has been melted and poured onto the surface? 
Or one could put it differently: “How does one get a 65- 
kilometer-thick crust that is 50 to 85 percent plagioclase 
without melting most of the Moon? And if melting oc¬ 
curred how could the Moon’s interior be relatively cool 

Conundrums that cannot be cracked. But we have seen 
the Soviet artificial-created-Moon theory has the answer to 
this and all the other lunar mysteries. 

The melted and “baked” outer shell of the Moon puzzles 
orthodox scientists today. Asks one NASA scientist: “ What 
force could have brought about significant distribution of 
crustal material?” 

Some claim this thorough job was done by celestial bom¬ 
bardment, simply because their data indicate that the Moon 
could never have been hot enough to have extensive vol¬ 
canic action. {The Moon, An International Journal of 
Lunar Studies , 1973, Vol. 8.) 

However, they add: “None of the suggested artificial 
sources [bombardment] for the observed criterions (sic) 
appears to be capable of producing what was observed. . . . 
The only possibility would be a natural source indigenous 
to the Moon. . . 

If the Moon could not generate enough heat to have 
done it from below and it didn’t come in the form of 
celestial bombardment of meteors and asteroids from above, 
where and what force accomplished this? Could it not be 
a truly artificial alien force, as all the other evidence in¬ 

Another news journal tells us that “there are indications 
that some force or forces once ‘rearranged’ materials on 
the Moon.” They point to one puzzling piece of informa- 


tionr a rock taken from the Sea of Tranquility by our astro¬ 
nauts which scientists are convinced actually came from 
a highland area a vast distance away! 

We have seen in this chapter much tantalizing and sub¬ 
stantial evidence that indeed the Moon was the object of 
a massive reconversion job—that its outer surface gives 
clear evidence of its having been transformed from a nat¬ 
ural asteroid or planetoid into a huge hollowed-out, rein¬ 
forced spacecraft! 


We can easily understand how all the mysteries of the 
maria melt away in light of the Soviet spaceship theory. 
Now the existence of pure titanium and other highly re¬ 
fractory elements found in such staggeringly great amounts 
in these lunar seas becomes understandable. Even the exis¬ 
tence of pure, rustproof iron on the Moon makes sense in 
light of the advanced alien technology that could undoubt¬ 
edly manufacture it—a process yet unknown on Earth even 
with our advanced technology. 

Now we know how the Moon could have been heated to 
4000°F.; why the Moon’s maria all seem so strangely 
circular and appear not to be randomly distributed across 
the Moon’s tortured face, but all on one side and, even 
more puzzlingly, almost all in one quadrant. This appar¬ 
ently was not just happenstance but planned by unknown 
alien intelligence. 

These clearly are not naturally formed “seas.” Whatever 
tremendous melting process refashioned the Moon world? 
Vasin and Shcherbakov claim it was the direct result of 
artificial construction by unknown alien beings. The evi¬ 
dence makes it appear that the Soviet scientists are shock¬ 
ingly correct in their speculations. Moreover, the multiply¬ 
ing mysteries and enigmas uncovered seem to disappear in 
light of this strange theory. 

For instance, now the mystery of the great multitude of 
craters on the Moon and their puzzling shallowness becomes 
clear. Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, leading NASA scientist, at 
the outset of this lunar detective race said: “If one looked 


long enough and hard enough at the craters of the Moon, 
one became aware that ‘the moon is trying to tell us some¬ 
thing/ ” 

Although Shoemaker, of course, was not referring to the 
spaceship theory, it is clear that there are plenty of clues 
and a mountain of evidence to tip us off about Spaceship 
Moon. Now suddenly the astounding shallowness of lunar 
craters becomes understandable if we accept the Spaceship 
Moon theory—the extremely hard and tough outer shell 
stops all incoming blasts from celestial missiles within two 
or three miles of the surface. 

Of course, there are other answers to this particular 
mystery. Undoubtedly, other planets like Mars and Mer¬ 
cury have broad shallow craters, which obviously does not 
necessarily make them spaceships either. 

There are other answers to the problems of why the 
Moon is such a bombarded piece of rock hammered with 
holes numbering in the hundreds of thousands, in fact the 
millions, while right nearby our planet Earth escaped rela¬ 
tively unscathed. 

Astronomers had been baffled by this particular problem 
until someone finally hit on a possible solution—an answer 
that could solve this conundrum. Admittedly, it could have 
happened at a time early in its cosmic career, when Earth 
was still hot enough to absorb the blasts, thus leaving no 
telltale scars, while the smaller Moon, which had already 
formed a hard outer shell, had holes ripped into it all over 
its tortured face. So even though our Earth, which was 
much larger and should have gotten more than its share of 
celestial hits, does not show that many, it is simply because 
the molten surface of our hot Earth at the time caused 
them to be effaced. 

These are other solutions to these seemingly insolvable 
lunar mysteries that are within the realm of orthodox sci¬ 
ence and which do not require the radical spaceship theory 
to resolve. However, it is intriguing and impressive that all 
the many mysteries uncovered since scientists have put the 
Moon under an intense study, dissolve in light of the 
spaceship solution. 

There is also evidence, as we have seen, that the Moon 
has on its surface telltale signs of artificial construction. 
Interestingly, the Soviet scientists are not the only ones to 


detect it. In George Leonard’s fascinating book Somebody 
Else is on the Moon he cites various scientists outside the 
Soviet Union who are convinced that the Moon may be a 
spaceship, among them a British physicist from Oxford and 
a scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (Cal 
Tech) in California. 

Furthermore, Leonard claims: “At least one qualified 
person has argued that the skin of the Moon may actually 
be an artificial protective cover—a cover which has been 
exposed in some places due to a horrendous debacle which 
took place a long time ago ” (Emphasis added.) 

Exactly what our Soviet theorists say. 

Later in that work Leonard makes this shocking obser¬ 
vation, which tends to back up this thesis: “It [the Moon] 
seems to have a built structure to it—a matrix, a gridwork, 
a weave.” 

He cites the fact that an astronaut dropped a piece of 
equipment (the LEM) on its surface and the Moon vi¬ 
brated for an hour! “The shock waves were recorded by 
seismographs some distance away.” 

Amazing! Absolutely inexplicable—except, of course, in 
light of the Spaceship Moon theory. No one has yet offered 
an explanation, except the spaceship answer. 

Leonard further states: “If you hit bedrock in Peking 
with a hydraulic hammer, I doubt it would be felt in Pitts¬ 
burgh; but the same blow on the far side of the Moon 
would certainly be detected on the near side.” 

We shall see this fact reinforced when we look at the 
next chapter, which proves the Moon has an inner shell of 
metallic rock. This is our next target on the Moon. 


There is nothing so far removed from us as to be be¬ 
yond our reach , or so hidden that we cannot detect it, 

—Rene Descartes (1596-1650), quoted by 

astronaut John Young 

TEN _ 


• Why does the Moon when close to the Earth cause a 
slight deviation in the magnetic needle of a compass? 

• Why is there a huge bulge on the far side of our lopsided 
Moon, a bulge which indicates the Moon is supported on the 
interior to give it great internal strength? 

• Why do strange circular disks centered like bull’s-eyes 
exist in the middle of the mysterious circular maria and 
how does this indicate that the Moon’s interior shell is “as 
rigid and as strong as steel”? 

• NASA documents admit that there is something that 
exists inside the Moon that differs greatly from the rest of 
the interior, that is denser than rock—what they describe 
as “a hard layer of something deep within the Moon.” 
What is that strange layer? 

• Why does this hard layer completely enshroud the 

• Why do lunar impacts cause the Moon to ring like a 
huge metal sphere? 

• Tremors are conveyed through the Moon through its 
outer layers at an unbelievable rate of 6 miles per second— 
thirteen times faster than a rifle bullet. This is the speed 
of sound through metal. Does a layer of metal or metallic 
rock enshroud the Moon? 


• The Moon suffers from “swarms” of tremors at times— 
what one scientist calls the “shakes.” Why does this malce 
sense only in light of Spaceship Moon’s inner shell of 

In their mind-boggling Sputnik article “Is the Moon the 
Creation of Alien Intelligence?” the two Soviet scientists 
Vasin and Shcherbakov hold that the Moon is a refashioned 
planetoid hollowed out and reconverted into a spaceship. 
This cosmic Noah’s Ark, they are convinced, was rein¬ 
forced on the interior with a huge, thick shield of what 
they call “space armour,” which they calculate is about 20 
miles thick. 

They explain: “From our point of view, the Moon is a 
thin-walled sphere. Probably the sphere’s shell is made up 
of two layers—a loosely packed outer layer to absorb the 
shocks of meteorite impacts, with an inner layer of 20- 
miles thick armour-plate.” 

Why such a fantastically huge shell of metal or metallic 
rock? They explain: “Naturally $ the hull of such a space¬ 
ship must be super-tough in order to stand up to the blows 
of meteorites and sharp fluctuations between extreme heat 
and extreme cold. Probably the shell is a double-layered 
affair—the basis a dense armouring of about 20 miles in 
thickness, and outside it some kind of more loosely packed 
covering [a thinner layer—averaging about three miles]. In 
certain areas—where the lunar ‘seas’ and ‘craters’ are—the 
upper layer is quite thin, in some cases non-existent.” 

So conclude our two Soviet spaceship theorists. 


It seems incredible that two orthodox scientists from a 
highly respected science institute—one of the world’s 
most esteemed—should postulate such a strange Moon, one 
that according to their model has a 20-mile-thick hull! On 
the surface it would seem utterly preposterous. 

Are there any hard-core scientific data and evidence to 
support this bold supposition? Surprisingly, yes. 



Actually, our Moon gave man a number of hints that 
it might have just such a huge inner metal shell even be¬ 
fore we went there. 

With the interior hull purportedly being metallic and all 
this exterior loaded to such a great extent with metal, the 
question might be asked, wouldn’t a metal detector on the 
Moon go wild? 

Intriguingly, in 1861 the American Journal of Science 
(81:98-103 and 84:381-87) did note more than a century 
ago that the Moon seemed to have an influence on sensitive 
magnetic needles, causing them to deviate slightly. Their 
conclusion from the data and evidence then available was 
startling: “The reported effects are small but definitely 
beyond probable error (Emphasis added.) 


There were other clues the Moon offered that some 
scientists did not miss. For the odd shape of the Moon itself 
indicated to some sharp scientists on Earth that something 
extremely strong did exist in her interior. Even before our 
space probes began to rip the veil of mystery from the 
Moon’s face, scientists on Earth surmised that our com¬ 
panion world was out of whack, and in fact possessed a 
huge bulge. However, scientists were mystified because 
their information indicated that peculiar bulge was seven¬ 
teen times greater than could be accounted for by the tidal 
pull of the planet Earth. What could have caused such a 
lopsided Moon? 

What was even more mystifying—and this scientists 
could not figure out— how could the Moon manage to sup¬ 
port such a huge bulge? As the great lunar expert Dr. 
Harold Urey pointed out: ‘This bulge is a non-equilibrium 
one and must be supported by some curious internal char¬ 
acteristic of the Moon , such as great strength of the in¬ 
terior or some variation in the density of the body of the 
Moon.” (America's Race for the Moon. Emphasis added.) 


Exactly what the Spaceship Moon possesses, say our two 
spaceship scientists. 

Then our Moon probes began and scientists got their 
biggest surprise. For they learned that the Moon had a 
bulge all right, but not exactly where scientists of Earth 
supposed it would be. It was, perplexingly, on the far side— 
a side that to our knowledge has never faced Earth. Clearly, 
as one scientist put it: "It appears that, not the earth , but 
something else has the attention of the moon ” (Science 
News, January 29, 1972. Emphasis added.) 

Although lunar experts had to revise their thinking about 
the Moon’s lopsidedness, they knew that it still indicated 
considerable internal strength on the inside of the Moon. 
The outstanding Moon scientist Zdenak Kopal noted in 
1971 that there “must be considerable strength in the deep 
interior of the Moon now, and that this has been true since 
the Moon acquired its irregular shape.” 

Kopal also stressed that it is surprising that a large ob¬ 
ject such as the Moon, stressed by tides and unequal heat 
changes, was not able to adjust its shape the few-kilometer 
bulge and thus relieve or smooth out this stress. That it has 
not done so, says Kopal, “surely indicates considerable 
strength in the deep interior.” 

One of the big questions that is perplexing lunar re¬ 
searchers today is, what peculiar internal strength lies 
within the body of the Moon itself to support this great 
bulge? Although this problem has dumbfounded scientists 
who today study the Moon, we now know the solution to 
this peculiarity of our planetary neighbor. 

We now know that the “mysterious” internal character¬ 
istic that gives the Moon its great internal strength is the 
metallic inner shell. At least, so insist our Soviet spaceship 
theorists. Admittedly this mystifying puzzle would no longer 
perplex science in light of the Soviet theory that the Moon 
has in its interior a metallic inner shell or hull. 

Other clues from our exploration of the Moon seem to 
verify that this strange world circling us has an interior as 
rigid and as strong as steel. When the tracing data of lunar 
orbiters discovered that great massive concentrations (mas- 
cons) did exist just under the surface of the circular maria, 
scientists were forced to conclude, as Richard Lewis puts 


it so well in his provocative The Voyages of Apollo, that 
“lunar rock structure is as strong as steel/* (Emphasis 
added.) Indications again of that artificial construction of 
a metal hull inside Spaceship Moon? 

So not only does the nonspherical shape of the Moon 
indicate great internal strength but, as this veteran science 
reporter puts it, the mascons alsp point clearly to the fact 
that the crustal structure of the maria indicate the lunar 
interior is “as rigid as steel.” 


If such were the case—if this strange world actually had 
a metallic-type spaceship hull—it could have been predicted 
even before man went to the Moon that when our Apollo 
spacecraft were sent crashing into the crust the Moon would 
produce vibrations and tremors utterly different from any 
man had ever known. If the hull were really metallic all 
the way around, these vibrations would be of extremely 
long duration and the crashes should make this huge metal¬ 
lic hull vibrate like a huge bell or gong. Remarkably, they 

What kind of material would convey shock waves such 
great distances? A metal sphere, of course, would. What¬ 
ever kind of material lies inside the Moon, there is no 
question that it transmits signals “very, very effectively,” 
says Dr. Gary Latham, chief seismologist for NASA. In 
fact, “so effectively that we are seeing impacts from all 
over the "Moon,” Latham claims. ( Science News, June 12, 

And these impacts are being recorded from all over the 
Moon, even though there are only four seismic stations 
placed at widely separated locations on the near side. 
Surely this indicates that this material completely enshrouds 
the entire lunar interior—whatever it is. And what material 


would transmit vibrations so effectively? A metallic hollow 
sphere could and would! 

No wonder the Moon rang like a huge bell upon man¬ 
made impacts. Reconsider the data and evidence: 

Apollo 12: Moon rings for nearly an hour. 


Apollo 13 (third stage of rocket hit): Moon vibrates for 
over three hours! 

Apollo 14 (lunar module hit): Moon reverberates for 
over 3 hours! 

And on and on—until the Moon actually reverberated 
upon impact for more than 4 hours! * 



The Soviet spaceship speculators concluded from their 
evidence that this metallic hull lay on the average about 
20 miles under the Moon’s hide of rock and dirt. 

Consider how American evidence bears this out. When 
the immense Saturn rocket of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mis¬ 
sion was propelled out of Earth orbit and sent crashing into 
the Moon, it produced a tremendous seismic response. 
The tremors traveled interiorly to a depth of 22-25 miles, 
according to a NASA document. ( Apollo 14: Science at 
Fra Mauro.) 

Scientists at NASA were naturally perplexed, but such 
results again are exactly what should be expected if the 
Soviet spaceship theory of the Moon is correct. And how 
correct they seem to be!—even to the amazing scientific 
“guess” about its inner depth. 

All the other Apollo spacecraft crashes into the crust 
of the Moon produced similar measurable tremors through 
its outer covering of rock and dirt, yielding this unbeliev¬ 
able secret of its hidden interior. The impact, for instance, 
of the lunar lander Falcon of the Apollo 15 mission indi¬ 
cates, as notes the NASA report Apollo 15, that there is a 
“hard layer of something deep within the Moon.” This 
would seem to be that inner shell of the hull of our Space¬ 
ship Moon which the Soviet scientists speculate exists 

Scientists admit that the puzzling hours-long vibrations 
indicate that whatever this extremely hard layer is, it trans¬ 
mits sounds extremely well, A metallic sphere transmits 

* “Signals from the larger man-made impacts continued for over 4 
hours,” Science magazine asserts. All signals show gradual increase 
and decrease in intensity. (See Science , November 12, 1971.) 


sounds extremely well. However, NASA scientists tell us 
that they think it is just extremely hard rock. But our Earth 
has a mantle of extremely hard rock under tremendous 
pressure, and it does not ring or vibrate anything the way 
the Moon does, although admittedly the Moon apparently 
does not have a soft, hot interior like Earth’s to dampen 
the length of these reverberations. 

Nevertheless, not only do luriar impacts produce tre¬ 
mendously long reverberations but the tremors travel great 
distances. The signals of the Apollo 15 impact traveled 
over 700 miles to the Apollo 12 seismometer on the Sea of 
Storms and to the Apollo seismometer at the Fra Mauro 

We have seen that after Apollo 12 astronauts Conrad 
and Bean blasted off from the Moon in their lunar module 
and docked with the command ship, the Apollo 12 ascent 
stage of that module was sent smashing into the Moon’s 
surface. Its impact set off reverberating seismic waves in 
the lunar interior unlike any ever recorded on our planet. 
Lunar scientists reported that the seismic waves lasted over 
55 minutes, the signals building to a peak in about 7 min¬ 
utes and then peculiarly tapering off ever so slowly, finally 
dying out about an hour later. Scientists not only admit 
that this phenomenon indicates that the Moon’s interior is 
an exceptionally effective conductor of vibrations but also 
confess that they are perplexed by the long delay between 
the time the signals began and the time they reached full 
strength, finally decaying to silence unbelievably great 
lengths of time later—in most instances several hours. The 
unusual length of these reverberations absolutely bewilders 
the best lunar seismic experts. 


Again the Moon is behaving like a hollow metal sphere. 
And there is evidence that the strange material that lies 
inside the Moon—that “hard layer of something deep 
within the Moon” that NASA admits is there—appears to 
form a complete shell that enshrouds the Moon. For the 
shock waves of impacts transmitted seismic responses all 


the way around the Moon! Similarly, as shocking as this 
appears to scientists, impacts actually have been received 
from the far side, conveyed to seismometers on the near 

This, of course, again raises this critical question: What 
kind of material lies inside the Moon, enshrouding its in¬ 
terior, which conducts sound so efficiently and effectively 
that tremors are conveyed completely around the Moon? 
Again, that metallic layer which the Soviet scientists theo¬ 
rize lies inside the Moon! 


Furthermore, the vibrations indicate that the Moon has 
this strangely different material in an inner layer. As NASA 
scientific report Apollo 16: On the Moon with Apollo 16 
(1972) says, “A very recent study of the results of previous 
spacecraft impacts has revealed the existence of a lunar 
crust that may be roughly 40 miles thick. It is now be¬ 
lieved by some of us that the .Moon may be shrouded with 
material that differs greatly from the material in the in¬ 
terior of the Moon ” (Emphasis added.) 

We have seen that the tremendous- distances that the 
tremors are conveyed through and around the Moon indi¬ 
cate that it is metal. The strange prolonged tremors that 
perplex scientists by their duration indicate that this is a 
shroud of metal. But there is something even more in¬ 
triguing and telling that science has learned about the inside 
of our Moon that is the crucial, final piece of evidence that 
proves it is metal. This comes from the mystifying speed 
with which these tremors travel through that hard inner 
layer that transmits vibrations so well. 

As Wernher Von Braun, leading space expert, pointed 
out: “The velocity [of seismic waves] seems to gradually 
increase down to a depth of about 15 miles—then there is 
a sharp increase. This abrupt increase can only be ac¬ 
counted for by a change to a denser material . At a depth 
of 40 miles , the velocity is estimated to be about six miles 
per second . . . No rocks examined thus far would under 
the actual pressures expected at a lunar depth of only 40 
miles transmit seismic impulses at speeds as high as six 


miles per second” (Popular Science, January 1972. Empha¬ 
sis added.) 

It is important to note that vibrations do travel much 
faster through metal, and of course through metallic rock, 
than through just plain rock! This data would indicate that 
the Moon has a layer of metal or metallic rock inside it. 
For we know the speed of sound through different materials. 
Any good physics manual can tell you this. What material 
would convey sounds at six miles per second—that is, 
thirteen times faster than a rifle bullet? Curiously, this is 
the same incredible speed at which the Apollo Moon-bound 
rockets blasted off from the Earth, bearing men to this 
strange, alien world. ( NASA's Apollo Expeditions to the 
Moon f 1975.) 

We learned on our trips to the Moon that the filled-in 
dark regions of the Moon are rich in metals rare on Earth 
—titanium, molybdenum, beryllium and the like. A check 
of the speed of sound through these metals so common in 
the outer shell of the Moon convinces us that the inner 
shell is composed of the same metals! 


Iron . 


meters / 


or about 

18,000 1 

Eeet / j 


Nickel . 










Titanium . 








Molybdenum .. 








Beryllium .... 








A quick glance here reveals that an intermixture of these 
metals that probably exist in that inner layer would pro¬ 
duce an alloy of metal that tremors would travel through at 
about 6 miles per second—in other words, about 30,GOO- 
35,000 feet per second! 

We must also remember that the above chart gives the 
speeds of sound through ordinary metal on Earth . Of 
course, sound waves would travel even faster at a lunar 
depth of 20-40 miles. 

* From Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (54th Edition), published 
by the Chemical Rubber Company (1973-74). 


Surely this seems to be the clinching argument—the final 
proof that the interior of the Moon has a metallic or 
metallic-rock layer, that layer of our Spaceship Moon 
which our two Soviet spaceship scientists claim exists! 


Scientists at NASA have produced various models of the 
Moon based on the data and information received. One such 
model is particularly intriguing: “Based on information 
scientists produced lunar models ,that would fit the strange 
phenomenon! Some such models would have made for a 
rather bizarre Moon, such as a hollow titanium ball, . . •” 
{Science News, November 29, 1974.) 

Amazing! This is exactly what the Soviet artificial-Moon 
theorists claim. In commenting on this “bizarre” model 
Captain Lee Scherer, director of the Apollo Lunar Ex¬ 
ploration Office, says such a model is “highly unlikely.” 
But as we have seen, this model might be more correct 
than our NASA officials are willing to admit. Certainly 
more astounding than any scientist or human being could 
possibly imagine! 

Yet it fits—perfectly. A huge rock-covered metal sphere? 
No wonder our Moon rings like a huge belli 


Another puzzle that has scientists perplexed is why the 
outer portions of the Moon seem to be devoid of iron in 
general, while Earth is so rich in that mineral. Not that 
the Moon does not contain iron. Actually, as we have 
seen, those vast lunar plains are rich in iron as well as 
other metallic elements. One scientific report concludes: 
“From the returns of Apollo 11 and 12, geologists knew 
that the maria were rich in iron—one thing that makes 
them appear darker than surrounding areas.” 

But apparently there is more iron inside the Moon than 
scientists first thought. For now scientists are seriously 


speculating that a thick metallic layer lies just under the 
crustal surface of rock and dirt. 

Remarkably, the speculation fit all the facts, for we 

• This is the area just underneath the surface which scien¬ 
tists have learned is rich in metallic elements like iron. It 
is the area or band which, when the Moon is hit with heavy 
impact, sends shock waves racing all the way around the 
Moon. This sounds remarkably like the metallic hull of 
the Soviet spaceship! 

• Interestingly, this layer of metal makes understandable 
our space agency’s own conclusion that “the material that 
the moon may be shrouded with . . . differs from the ma¬ 
terial of the rest of the Moon.” In other words^ differs from 
the rock crust. 

• This different material that enshrouds the Moon really 
sounds like the spaceship hull that our two Soviet scientists 
speculate exists just under the Moon’s outer crust of rock 
and dirt—a material that not only transmits sounds ex¬ 
tremely well, but which definitely gives the Moon con¬ 
siderable internal strength. And we do know that something 
exists inside the Moon that gives it considerable internal 
strength to allow for the existence of the nonequilibrium 
figure of the Moon—the lopsided bulge of that orb. This 
spaceship hull or shell could be that “something.” 

• The speed at which tremors travel through this internal 
layer is the speed at which sounds travels through metals. 
In conclusion, every indication exists that here seems to 
lie the metallic hull of our Spaceship Moon. 


Furthermore, various other lunar studies reveal that just 
such a layer of metal does exist beneath the outer rock crust 
of our lunar world. In a technical study reported by the 
NASA-sponsored Fourth Lunar Conference (Proceedings 


of the Fourth Lunar Conference , Pergamon Press, 1973, 
VoL 3) Dr. Curtis Parkin, Department of Physics, Uni¬ 
versity of Santa Clara, and Palmer Dyal and William 
Daily of NASA’s Ames Research Center, using Apollo 12 
and Apollo 15 lunar-surface magnetometer data with 
simultaneous lunar orbiting Explorer 35 data, plotted 
hysteresis curves for the entire Moon. In their technical 
paper, “Iron Abundance in the Moon from Magnetometer 
Measurements,” these lunar experts declare: 

“This result implies that the moon is not composed en¬ 
tirely of paramagnetic material [rock] but that ferromag¬ 
netic material such as free iron exists in sufficient amounts 
to dominate the bulk lunar susceptibility.” 

The study’s conclusion is staggering in its implications: 

“We have found no reasonable paramagnetic mineral or 

combination of minerals with the correct lunar density that 

would have permeability high enough to be consistent with 

our measured values. From this we infer that the moon 


must contain some material in the ferromagnetic state, such 
as free metallic iron , in order to account for th.j measured 
global permeability.” (Emphasis added.) 

Other studies from different data have come to a similar 
conclusion: that metallic material exists in a large amount 
in a layer just under the outer rock surface of our Moon. 
The highly regarded lunar journal The Moon , an Inter¬ 
national Journal of Lunar Studies points to three such 
studies: Sonnett’s (1971), Urey’s (1971), and Murphy’s 
(1971). They all point to a metallic layer inside the Moon. 
Sonnett postulated a three-layered structure for the Moon 
similar to the Soviets’, a special feature of which was “a 
thin conductivity layer . ♦ . which has been suggested to be 
Fe [iron] metal” or a similar alloy. 


Another perplexing mystery of the Moon is the fact that 
the outer parts seem to be a huge rubble pile 20 miles deep. 
Dr. J. A. Wood of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observa¬ 
tory noted at the Apollo 14 pre-mission science briefing: 

• 147 

“It’s from this layer of broken-up rubbish that the astro¬ 
nauts make their collection.” (J. A. Wood et al. f “Lunar 
Highlands Anorthosite and Its Implications,” Proceedings 
of Apollo 11 Lunar Conference , Pergamon Press, 1970.) 

Dr. Gary Latham, chief seismological researcher, points 
out: “The evidence seems to indicate a broken up, rubble 
structure in the outer 10 or 20 miles.” What could have 
created this? “We are not able to say how this structure 
came into being.” 

Another mystery that can be solved in light of the Space¬ 
ship Moon with its inner hull of metal or metallic rock. For 
if the Moon does have this hard inner shell, then the outer 
rubble pile makes sense. Most scientists like Wood agree 
that the outer layer of broken hard rock under the topsoil 
was probably created by the unrelenting pounding of me¬ 
teors, asteroids, and comets striking the lunar surface over 
eons. But why should it break up? Because after eons and 
eons of the constant pounding Spaceship Moon obviously 
received as it traveled through the cosmos, gradually but 
persistently the outer .layers of the Moon would be broken 
up as great meteors and asteroids (undoubtedly including 
a comet or two) crashed into its crust. Like candy coating 
covering a harder inner shell, the outer coating of rock 
gradually began to crack and break up, leaving what we see 
today—a huge rubble-pile structure in its outer crust which 
is 10-20 miles deep. 

Spaceship Moon solves yet another lunar conundrum. 



Before man went to the Moon most scientists were con¬ 
vinced it was a dead world. Until recently, as far as man 
could tell it was a very quiet world. But after man landed 
and set up various seismological stations he soon discovered 
that it was a very active world indeed. Swarms of tremors 
or activities have been discovered to be taking place inside 
this mystery world. Not only moonquakes or activities 
deeper than any detected on Earth, focused 50Q-1000 miles 
beneath the lunar surface, but something else that is very 


strange was detected more toward the outer surface. 

Peculiar swarms of seismological activities are being 
picked up by our sensitive seismometers. Swarms of what 
scientists call “mini-quakes” for want of a better term have 
been detected. These reports of internal activities or tremors 
are over and above the larger, presumably tiny moonquakes 
that are reported. Chief seismologist Gary Latham of 
Columbia University Geological Observatory, Palisades, 
New York, along with his expert staff has been analyzing 
these strange unconventional seismic signals, which seem to 
come, as he describes them, in “swarms.” 

Latham notes: “During the period of swarm activity, 
events occur as frequently as once every two hours over 
intervals lasting several days. The source of swarms is un¬ 
known at present.” ( The Moon, An International Journal 
of Lunar Studies, 1972. Also see Science News, November 
29, 1971.) Another Moon mystery. 

Instruments have recorded transmissions of high-fre¬ 
quency waves lasting from one to nine minutes. Scientists 
are befuddled, although a few conjecture that they might 
be landslides in the Moon’s'outer surface areas. They con¬ 
tinue on and on, so this is an unlikely explanation. 

Literally thousands of these tiny tremors have been re¬ 
ported, all of them believed to be of natural origin. Latham 
noticed one distinct pattern for these shakes and quakes: 
Nearly all of them occur each month when the Moon comes 
closest to the Earth. He naturally infers that the increased 
tug on the Moon by the Earth’s gravity produces tidal 
stresses on the Moon, causing some shifting and shaking of 
its outer crust or shell. And the Earth’s tug on the Moon 
is considerable, much greater than the Moon’s pull on 

Interestingly, the moonquakes occur most frequently 
along the lunar rills, those narrow but mysterious deep 
canyons that meander for hundreds of miles across the lunar 
surface, which some scientists (as we noted in Our Mys¬ 
terious Spaceship Moon) are convinced “cannot exist.” 

The existence of moonquakes or internal seismic activity 
does not mean, Latham points out, that the Moon’s interior 
is necessarily hot. They do not seem to be due to volcanic 
activity but rather to the shifting of the crust of the Moon. 


These weak tremors are for the most part less than mag¬ 
nitude 2 on the Richter scale. They seldom reach depths 
of more than half a mile. 

Incidentally, this low level of seismic activity is another 
indication that the Moon’s outer shell is rigid and stable, 
far more so than our Earth’s. So conclude lunar experts 
like Latham. 

These myriad tremors have led one scientist to observe 
that it almost seems as though the Moon has “the shakes.” 
The cause is intriguingly mystifying. Could it be, however, 
that some of these swarms of tremors are caused by the 
cracked, broken crustal layers of rock which when out-of- 
balance are adjusting themselves over the hard continuous 
inner shell of Spaceship Moon? We do know, as we have 
seen, that just such a shroud or band of extremely hard 
material that conveys tremors extremely well and appears 
to be metallic does exist there. Could it be that as the 
Earth’s pull causes the outer crust of the Moon to shift 
constantly back and forth over this hard inner shell seismic 
evidence says the Moon has the shakes? The Moon’s huge 
outer rubble pile’s continually shifting seems to be the 
cause. And the solution seems to be the hull of our Space¬ 
ship Moon. 


As we have seen, the entire scientific picture painted by 
seismic signals as learned from the Apollo lunar program 
indicates that our Moon is an artificial world inside—a 


spaceship, as the two Soviet scientists maintain. 

We have also cited various studies done by a whole host 
of scientific experts to back this frightening conclusion. 

Finally, we have noted, how such a metal-hulled space¬ 
ship dissolves some of the sticky and perplexing problems 
that have mystified lunar scientists ever since man began 
to study our neighboring mystery world. 

No wonder some NASA scientists have come up with a 
model of the Moon that is a rock-encrusted hollow metallic 
sphere. Such a Moon fits the evidence. And such a Moon 
is exactly what our Soviet scientists claim our satellite to 


be—nothing else than a huge hollowed out, alien-created 


The moon is teaching us extraordinary things . . . 

— Dr, Gerald Wasserburg, Cal Tech , NASA scientist 



• What would cause a “Straight Wall ” Formation on the 
Moon’s exterior—an unusual mountain or cliff-like “con¬ 
struction” that extends for 60 miles? 

• What are the strange circular disks centered like a bulTs- 
eye in the middle of the Moon’s circular seas? Why do 
scientists say they should not be there—in fact cannot 

® What evidence is there that gigantic girderlike blocks of 
metal about 1000 kilometers long exist inside the Moon? 

• How do scientists explain identical seismographic signal 
trackings that keep coming from the Moon’s interior? Why 
is this seemingly impossible? How does it indicate artificial 
construction in the Moon’s interior? 

Astronomers in the past actually claimed to have detected 
strange “constructions” on the outer surface of our satellite. 
For centuries they stared and strained their eyes through 
Earth telescopes, sometimes perceiving strange sights on 
the lunar surface. The German astronomer F. Gruithuisen 
insisted that he saw what he referred to as “ramparts” on 
the Moon—artificial fortresses built apparently by some 
kind of Moon beings. He even claimed that he saw the 
roofs of their houses and could make out their roads. 

Although Gruithuisen undoubtedly had an overactive 
imagination, he was considered a competent astronomer 
and made several notable contributions to our general 
knowledge and understanding of the Moon. Similarly, 
there is no doubt that most of the so-called artificial con- 

structions detected on our Moon’s surface were actually 
mistaken interpretations of natural features. However, as 
we have already seen (and shall see again in a future chap¬ 
ter), apparently a number are almost certainly some kind 
of artificial construction. 

Furthermore, as the late H. P. Wilkins observed, it is 
hard to believe that these competent observers were com¬ 
pletely mistaken, that what they saw was purely a product 
of their imagination. In some cases they most certainly saw 
something. What that “something” was we can today only 


One of the natural features of the Moon that perplexed 
astronomers in the past even as it causes wonder among 
moongazers today is the strange straight structure known 
as the “Straight Wall.” One astronomy guide says that it is 
a “feature so artificial in appearance” that in the late nine¬ 
teenth century it was frequently referred to as “The Rail¬ 
way.” Some astronomers observing this strange structure, 
which seemingly rises from the bowels of the Moon, going 
steadily straight outward (although not perfectly straight 
for over 60 miles), claimed that it could be nothing else 
but a “constructed wall” made without a doubt by intelli¬ 
gent beings. This was a common opinion in the seventeenth 
and eighteenth centuries. 

Today, of course, astronomers unanimously disagree 
with this interpretation; the “Straight Wall” appears to be 
merely a huge fault line. Still, all agree that it is most un¬ 
usual—it looks almost as if something underneath were 
pushing up through the crust of the Moon, 

Exactly! say Vasin and Shcherbakov. For our Soviet 
spaceship scientists speculate that it is not a surface con¬ 
struction, although it is not completely a natural feature 
either. It is strangely straight, they hold, because this most 
splendid feature of the lunarscape—a straight “wall” nearly 
500 yards wide and over 60 miles long—“formed as a 
result of one of the armour plates bending under the im¬ 
pact of celestial torpedoes and raising one of its straight 
even edges.” 


It is in effect a section of the spaceship hull or shell that 
has been ruptured or otherwise damaged that creates this 
unusual feature. It is interesting to note that today the out¬ 
line of a huge, 100-mile-wide crater caused by a meteor 
which impacted here eons ago right over this very area can 
be seen. Could this have unhinged the spaceship hull, as 
the Soviet scientists speculate? 

Frankly, this bizarre proposal appears to be sheer guess¬ 
work; yet, strangely enough, on the back side almost di¬ 
rectly opposite the “straight wall” is a huge crack, 150 miles 
long and 5 miles wide in some places. Is it too farfetched 
to speculate that if the Moon does have the inner metallic 
hull of a spaceship—and there is every indication that it 
does—this vast opening is somehow related in its formation 
to the Straight Wall? Could it be that when the bow plating 
of the hull was ruptured or damaged, thus pushing up the 
huge fault line, as our Soviet spaceship theorists speculate, 
at the same time it pulled open this great crack formation 
on the far side of the Moon? 

The huge circular seas of lava, which are apparently 
loaded with metals, would have required gargantuan equip¬ 
ment to construct. If this is correct, the Soviet scientists 
hold, they could be ponderous enough to cause gravita¬ 
tional anomalies that could be detected by man. 

Amazingly, as our early unmanned spacecraft were 
orbiting the Moon, they detected such gravitational anom¬ 
alies over the maria! In 1968 tracking data for the lunar 
or biters first indicated that massive concentrations (mas- 
cons) existed under the surface of these circular maria. In 
fact, the gravitational anomalies were so pronounced that 
the spacecraft actually dipped slightly and accelerated when 
passing over the circular lunar plains. 

Irving Michelson notes: “When the spacecraft passed 
close to these buried masses, the resultant lunar gravita¬ 
tional attraction it experienced was abruptly and drastically 
modified, thereby changing the subsequent path in much 
the same manner as if engine thrust had been applied.” 
Eugene Rabinovich, ed.,. Man on the Moon , Basic Books 


Scientists calculated that the cause was “enormous con¬ 
centrations” of dense, heavy matter which, as one scientist 


graphically phrased it, was “centered like a bull’s-eye under 
the circular maria.” 

Scientists at first speculated that these mascons were just 
intense concentrations of lava that filled the deep basins. 
Opponents of this theory claimed that there was just not 
enough lava there to produce the effect the mascons were 

Other lunar experts thought that the mascons might be 
the remains of huge meteors or asteroids that hit here 
when the maria were created. However, this offers even 
more difficulties, not the least of which is, as we have seen, 
the solid evidence that the circular dark plains of the Moon 
were not caused by celestial bombardment but by massive 
upwelling from some internal source. 

We can only speculate and guess. It may almost seem as 
if in this “guesswork” we were weaving science fiction here. 
But as we have seen, the guesses at least to some extent rest 
on solid scientific fact. 


Although astronomers in the past have had a field day 
observing strange things on the surface of our Moon, no 
one has speculated that artificial constructions of all kinds 
have existed inside the Moon. That is, until Vasin and 
Shcherbakov came along with their Spaceship Moon theory. 

These two Soviet Academy of Sciences researchers spec¬ 
ulate that inside the Moon all kinds of constructions, in¬ 
cluding machinery and engines, must exist yet to this day. 
As they note: “In other words, everything necessary to 
enable this ‘Caravelle of the Universe’ to serve as a kind 
of Noah’s Ark of intelligence, perhaps even as the home of 
a whole civilization envisaging a prolonged (thousands of 
millions of years) existence and long wanderings through 
space (thousands of millions of miles).” 

If they are right in this bold idea, and the Moon is 
actually a spaceship, naturally the machines and artificial 
constructions, whatever they might be, undoubtedly still 
exist inside our Spaceship Moon. 

Amazingly, from seismic study and the data of very 


sensitive instrumental detection comes evidence that some 
kind of artificial construction does exist inside Luna. 


The authors of the Spaceship Moon theory, who believe 
that tremendous amounts of metallic rock were poured 
forth onto the surface in the creation of a hollowed-out 
moonship world, also are convinced that “the stocks of 
materials and machinery for doing this are no doubt still 
where they were.” They also claim that scientists have de¬ 
tected them. It should be noted, however, that they are only 
speculating that this is what they are. Here is another pos¬ 
sibility, expressed by Irving Michelson in Man on the Moon: 
“Cassini’s assertion of the perfect uniformity of the moon’s 
rotational motion might also be explained by the mascons, 
since their effect would be to contribute to a lunar structure 
particularly conducive to the extremely stable motion that 
the observed regularity represents. Newtonian mechanics 
and gravitation certainly also stand firm in that new pic¬ 
ture, and the formerly inexplicable high values of the latest 
inertia moment difference can likewise be fully accounted 
for by the presence of the mascons.” 

Note also that the mascons, whatever they may be, are 
huge circular disks centered like a bull’s-eye smack in the 
center of each circular maria. Scientists have pointed out 
that they could not be the “remains” of celestial* meteors, 
for those would have vaporized upon impact, since they 
hit with enough speed to cause fierce explosions equal to 
the force of any atomic bomb. 

Scientists are perplexed and befuddled by the mascons 
in more ways than one. In fact, ever since their discovery 
in the late sixties the mascons have proved to be a major 
problem. As one scientist has put it: “No one seems to 
know quite what to do with them.” 

Actually, scientists did not expect to find such gravita¬ 
tional anomalies under the billiard-table-like lunar plains. 
Our early Apollo expeditions carried out a series of ex¬ 
periments verifying their existence. Walter Brown of the 
Jet Propulsion Lab at Pasadena confessed: “We expected 


on the marias signals would reveal smooth subsurface struc¬ 
tures and the opposite would be true for the highlands . . . 
but the sounder signals were well-behaved over the High¬ 
lands and bounced around over the maria, implying sub¬ 
surface features . . . disc-like objects.” 

What they are is a major Moon mystery. It now appears 
that the mascons are broad disk-shaped objects that could 
be possibly some kind of artificial construction. For huge 
circular disks are not likely to be beneath each huge maria, 
centered like bull’s-eyes in the middle of each, by coinci¬ 
dence or accident. 

But there is yet another mystery with the mascons be¬ 
yond just their unsuspected, unlikely, and hard-to-account- 
for existence—a mystery which may furnish us with still 
another clue proving them to be not completely natural. 
The mascons are situated in seas of metallic lava, and it 
is perplexing that they have not sunk away from the sur¬ 
face. Any way scientists look at the maria they appear to 
have been formed by heat. Why didn’t they sink to the 
bottom of these molten lava seas before the lava hardened? 

Dr. Michael Yates, a leading NASA scientist, summarizes 
this problem: “There is a serious problem with the mascons, 
with any theory that says the moon is ‘hot.’ For there is 
no reason why the structures would not sink into a hot 
moon, unless that inner structure cooled soon ... or unless 
there is some insulating region between the outer and inner 
areas.” (Science News , April 3, 1971.) 

Of course, if they are some kind of artificial construction, 
as Shcherbakov and Vasin suggest, then these problems 
disappear. In the orthodox view the mascons should not be 

Then what in the name of Apollo are they? Perhaps the 
answer to this puzzle might be found in terms of intelligent 
alien formation of the mascons, as the Soviet spaceship 
scientists insist. 


If there is that much artificial construction and “all man¬ 
ner of machinery,” as the Soviet scientists suggest, wouldn’t 


our sensitive seismometers on the Moon have detected 

Surprisingly, they have! From the data of our sensitive 
seismometers comes a report that indicates that artificial 
construction of some kind does definitely exist inside Luna. 
A science report from the office of Dr. Gary Latham, 
NASA’s chief seismologist, reveals that two “belts of activ¬ 
ity deep inside the Moon have been detected through our 
sensitive seismometers.” 

The report claims that “the belts are at least 1000 kilo¬ 
meters long and 1000 kilometers deep and do not appear to 
intersect.” (Science News t April 7, 1973.) It observes: 
“The most exciting and puzzling aspect of the active zones 
(or belts) is their distribution.” 

Dr. Latham frankly admits he is puzzled by the entire 
discovery. “I’m mystified. We can’t explain it yet” 

Latham rules out the possibility that they are great frac¬ 
ture systems, since the quakes in a given belt “do not show 
a systematic correlation with lunar tides.” “Another possi¬ 
bility is that they are composed of material such as em¬ 
bedded blocks of iron that would cause them to have 
different elastic properties from the rest of the Moon.” 
(Science News , April 7, 1973. Emphasis added.) 

Embedded blocks of iron found in natural form inside 
the Moon? It is not explained how this is possible, although 
the report implies that since the belts are 1000 kilometers 
long, the “embedded blocks of iron” are also about that 

Obviously, there is no way iron blocks like that could 
exist naturally inside the Moon. The thousand-kilometer- 
long blocks of metal simply do not exist naturally. In light 
of the Spaceship Moon theory, huge girderlike blocks of 
metal become not only understandable but something that 
should be expected. 


Unbelievably, there is even further evidence of artificial 
construction inside our Moon. This evidence again comes 
from our seismometers on the Moon. For our scientists 


have found an even more perplexing puzzle—this one abso¬ 
lutely mind-boggling—and that is the preciseness with 
which moonquakes are triggered at not only the same 
time but, mystifyingly, in the same way. The seismographic 
readouts indicate they are always identical! 

For perhaps the most striking phenomenon of all regard¬ 
ing our strange Moon is that the seismic recordings each 
month conform to nearly the same identical pattern. The 
sequence of events, as Earth’s gravity tugs at the Moon, 
seems to be the same each month, rendering the same 
“seismic signature.” Frankly, what is happening appears 
to be impossible! 

Lunar seismic disturbances are assumed to be generated 
by stresses building up-and sliding or other movement of 
rock faces. In the case of the Moon, lunar expert Gary 
Latham explains, probably the tidal pull builds up until the 
“friction can no longer hold these surfaces together and 
they just pop; they slide. . . But of course they would 
not slide each and every time in the same way at the same 
time. And yet they appear to be doing just that! The hap¬ 
penstance shifting of differing rock layers performing in the 
same way appears to be impossible. Dr. Latham admits this 
phenomenon defies explanation. 

Moonquakes occur at monthly intervals like clockwork. 
When the Moon is closest (perigee) the first popping noises 
come. Actually, the very first occur five days before the 
Moon reaches perigee in its orbit, and then again another 
event indicates something stirring inside the Moon three 
days before perigee. The amazing thing is the clockwork 
precision with which this all happens. Scientists find it 
absolutely astonishing. “You can nearly set your watch 
by it,” confesses Latham. (NASA Science Briefing, Hous¬ 
ton, May 26, 1971.) 

Even stranger than the identical timing is the phenom¬ 
enon of the identical signal trackings scientists are receiving 
from our lunar seismometers! 

It is understandable that the gravitational pull of the 
Moon can cause the tides and even uplift the solid Earth, 
causing it to bulge a few inches at high tide. Earth exerts 
a much greater pull on the Moon—in fact, twenty times as 
much. This is what makes the result so baffling. Seismic 


signals being received at different seismological stations on 
the Moon are identical for each respective station. 

A New York Times report spells out this perplexing 
puzzle: “A remarkable recently discovered feature of these 
events is that each one transmits a complex but identical 
sequence of signals through the Moon. If one lays the 
records of tremors recorded at one station for a number 
of these events above and below one another, they are vir¬ 
tually the same!” The report adds: “The fact that these 
events are always identical is remarkable, according to 
seleneologists.” (New York Tim$s s August 4, 1972, and 
April 27," 1971.) 

That is the understatement of the century. For how 
could the shifting of rock and crust be always the same? 
How could they produce identical seismographic re¬ 

New York Times editor Walter Sullivan compares the 
likelihood of this happening to the possibility of the stock 
market always registering the same each and every time. 
“It is as though the ups and downs of the stock market 
repeated themselves precisely for each period of fluctu¬ 
ation.” Impossible? How could each seismographic station 
on the Moon come up with virtually identical signal se¬ 
quences for that station, time after time, month after 
month? The records for Apollo 12 site are thus all the 
same; those at Apollo 14 are the same. 

What could cause identical seismic signal trackings froim 
inside our Moon? Latham confesses he has no explanation. 
He is utterly mystified. Latham admits that earthquakes 
naturally produce different seismic recordings each and 
every time. There are very rare instances of identical re¬ 
cordings made in the Himalayan Mountains—but only rare 
instances, not each and every time, as they are inside the 

In our opinion, it is hard to understand how this could 
be a natural phenomenon. However, something artificially 
constructed could produce the same identical seismic result, 
which could occur over and over. Could not this be the 
answer to this mystifying mystery of our Moon? 

Could not, for instance, two long girderlike blocks of 
metal pulled by the gravity of Earth move the same way 


each and every time, thus producing identical signal track¬ 
ings for each respective seismometer on the Moon? 

Absolutely. In fact, you would expect it. This is, in our 
opinion, striking evidence that the Moon does in fact have 
such artificial construction! No other explanation seems 

Of all the major pieces of evidence proving the Moon is 
a spaceship this we are convinced is the single most im¬ 
portant. The implication of this evidence is clear—the 
Moon does have artificial construction on the inside. It is 
a spaceship. What other answer can there be? 

The more we see of the moon, the more complicated 
we know it is. 

— Dr. Robin Brett NASA scientist 



What further evidence indicates that the Moon is a space¬ 

• What evidence is there that the Moon is much older than 
Earth and therefore came from some other corner of the 

• Why is it that some scientists claim that Moon rocks 
have been found which were dated up to 7 and even 20 
billion years of age? 

• Did NASA really reveal a rock that was 5.3 billion years 
old—nearly a billion years older than the estimated age 
of Earth and solar system? 

• Why did one Nobel prize-winning scientist and leading 
lunar expert claim that certain elements found on the Moon 
indicate that the Moon is much older than Earth but that 
he cannot explain how it got here? 

• Why were rocks that were dated 4.4 and 4.6 billion 
years old called “the younger rocks on the Moon” by lead¬ 
ing lunar experts? 

• Why do great amounts of argon 40 found in lunar sam- 


pies lead scientists to conclude that the Moon must be at 
least 7 billion years old—almost twice as old as our own 
Sun and Earth? 

• Why does the lunar soil appear to be a billion years 
older than Moon rocks? And why is this on the surface 
seemingly impossible? Why does the Spaceship Moon theory 
dissolve this “impossibility”?. 

• Why did a group of scientists propose that the Moon 
was formed between the stars before our Sun was born, 
and later captured by Earth? How was it then drawn into 
a stable, circular orbit around Earth? Why is this most 
difficult to explain? 

• How does the mystifyingly different chemical composi¬ 
tion of the Moon indicate that it was not formed in its 
present orbit around our Earth but somewhere else in the 

• Why does the Moon appear today to scientists to have 
been “made inside out,” as one leading NASA scientist put 
it? Why does this exactly fit' the hollo wed-out-spaceship 

• Why are the Moon’s upper 8 miles so highly radioactive, 
loaded with elements that should not be there naturally? 

• How can NASA scientists explain the huge cloud of 
water vapor 100 miles square that was discovered on this 
dry, dry world? What evidence exists that it definitely came 
from the Moon’s interior, and why does this perfectly fit 
the spaceship theory? 

• Clear evidence exists that the Moon was once a hot 
body; equally valid evidence exists that the Moon could 
never have been that hot naturally. Why is it that scientists 
cannot resolve this contradiction, and why is it that the 
Soviet spaceship theory does? 

• Why does the Moon yield so many contradictions and 
paradoxes, and why is it that all are easily understandable 
in terms of the spaceship theory? 

Long ago it was thought that standing in Luna’s cold 


white light too long could cause you to go mad—to become 
a lunatic! Undoubtedly there are people who hear me 
enthusiastically proclaim that the Moon may be a space¬ 
ship and think: “Wilson, you have been standing in the 
light of the full Moon too long! You and your Soviet 
theorists are lunatics!” 

Perhaps when you first heard of the Russian theory you 
thought the same thing. But now that you have covered 
the latest mind-boggling Apollo findings and see how 
everything fits the spaceship picture so neatly, maybe you 
have found your mind bending a bit. 

Former NASA science researcher William Corliss in his 
book Mysteries of the Universe observed before our astro¬ 
nauts went to the Moon: “The astronauts of Project Apollo 
are journeying to a world that is radically different from 
ours. They should bring back not only answers to our ques¬ 
tions about lunar activity but mysteries far deeper than 
‘mere lights on the moon.* ” 

Little did Corliss realize how prophetic his words would 
be! Instead of giving Earth’s scientists a clear picture of the 
origin and nature of our neighbor, the Apollo missions 
merely added mystery upon mystery, until now it seems 
that science finds the Moon a complete enigma. 

In my search for the truth about our Moon—whatever it 
might be—I came across a fascinating article in the New 
York Times Magazine (May 1972) entitled “The Moon 
is More of a Mystery Than Ever,” written by Earl Ubell, 
then science editor of CBS News in New York. He stated 
that our Apollo findings swirled with contradictions and 
mysteries. Some facts indicated that the Moon was formed 
cold; others that it was hot; some that the Moon does not 
have a magnetic field, others that it once did, and so on. 

In fact, probably the most pervasive findings in all our 
lunar research was the discovery that the deeper scientists 
probed, trying to unravel the truth about the Moon’s 
make-up and origins, the more confused they became. 
Equally valid data and evidence seemed to back con¬ 
tradictory conclusions. About the only thing for certain 
the scientific probings produced was just more uncertainty 
—more questions and more and more mysteries. In fact, 
instead of giving us answers to key questions and perplexing 


lunar problems, as one NASA expert Dr. Gerald Wasser- 
burg put it: “The Moon is giving us answers we don’t even 
have questions for.” 

Over 800 geologists, chemists, geochemists, geophysical 
and astrophysical experts, physicists and astronomers, in¬ 
cluding all the greats in those fields, have studied the Moon 
evidence, the rock and soil samples and the other informa¬ 
tion, in a valiant attempt to learn the truth about the per¬ 
plexing satellite orbiting our Earth. 

These giants of the intellectual world have undertaken 
perhaps the toughest detective job ever tackled by man. 
But as Columbia University’s Dr. Gary Latham, one of 
NASA’s leading lights, confessed, it nevertheless is “the 
most exciting business in the world.” This despite the fact 
that its results have turned out to be mostly frustrating 
with conflicting, contradictory evidence and clues all over 
the place confusing even the most knowledgeable lunar 

Ubell summarized the situation in his article: “Most 
moonmen believe that there is a Kepler or Copernicus, or a 
Darwin, or an Einstein waiting in the wings to take all the 
contradictory data and theory and weld them into one ex¬ 
planation. That synthesis could have as great an impact on 
the intellectual and ordinary life of man as did the ideas 
of a sun-centered world, the theory of human evolution 
and the theory of relativity.” 

If the Soviet spaceship theory is confirmed, then indeed 
Ubell would be even more correct than he dreamed! 

The amazing outcome, as we have seen, is that the lunar 
evidence indeed appears to do just that—it proves that this 
strange world of the Moon is a hollow and therefore ar¬ 
tificial satellite—in short, a spaceship! 

For, remarkably, the myriad mysteries of the Moon un¬ 
covered by our continuing lunar space probes appear to dis¬ 
appear in light of Spaceship Moon. In fact, amazingly, they 
are not mysteries at all—for under the artificial Moon 
theory they are actually what would be expected . 

In his Times article Ubell lists a number of mysteries 
of the Moon that today perplex lunar experts. Let us re¬ 
view them in light of years of matured scientific detective 


work to see if they indeed do disappear when scrutinized 
through this Soviet artificial-Moon theory. 


The moon did have a far older surface than the earth . 

— Dr. Robert J as trow 



When our astronauts first went to the Moon and brought 
back rocks for scientists to examine and analyze, scientists 
never expected to find the Moon rocks far older than the 
Earth or even the solar system. 

As Earl Ubell tells us: “Everything about the moon is old 
. . . old . . . old. Scientists certainly expected things on the 
Moon to have been relatively undisturbed, but they were 
not prepared for the pervading antiquity.” 

Amazingly over 99 percent of the Moon rocks brought 
back turned out to be older than 90 per cent of the oldest 
rocks found on our planet Earth. Some rocks, a few scien¬ 
tists insist, are far older than even our star, the Sun. 

The very first rocks that astronaut Neil Armstrong picked 
up at random after landing on the Sea of Tranquility turned 
out to be more than 3.6 billion years old! This is quite 
remarkable in light of the fact that our scientists on Earth 
have searched for centuries to find rock even near that old. 

The oldest rocks ever found on Earth up to recently were 
around 3.5 billion years old, and these were searched out of 
some African crannies. A few slightly older, now purported¬ 
ly the oldest rocks in the world, have since been discovered 
in Greenland. They are dated around 3.7 billion years old— 
approximately the same age as the rock from the Sea of 

But this was only the beginning of the Lunar antiquity 
story. One rock from man’s first trip to the Moon turned 
out to be a bafflng 4.3 billion years old. Another puzzler 
(Rock 13) checked out at an unbelievable 4.5 billion years 
of age. Finally, an Apollo 11 soil sample turned out to be 
4.6 billion years old—the estimated age of the entire solar 
system itself. Strangely, the soil was about a billion years 
older than the rocks around it. 


But this entire story is much more remarkable than it 
appears on the surface. For scientists had evidence that 
the maria were the younger parts of the Moon, so that 
the rocks found there would be among the younger rocks 
of the Moon. In other words, as science reporter Richard 
Lewis puts it, “rocks as old as the oldest ever found on 
Earth were actually the younger rocks of the Moon!” {The 
Voyages of Apollo .) Amazing. Unbelievable. 

Soviet unmanned landings on the Moon have yielded 
similar results. The Soviet probes have returned with sam¬ 
ples of that alien world from several of her “seas.” One of 
the Moon’s older seas—or so it appears—turned out to 
be the Sea of Fertility. For the data indicated that it was 4.6 
billion years old—as old as the solar system itself. But 
scientists have a conundrum on their hands, for other equal¬ 
ly valid evidence indicates that such a sea actually is the 
youngest part of our' planetary companion world. How is 
this possible? 

The age of our planet Earth is now generally agreed to 
be about 4.6 billion years—the age of the Sun and its 
planets. The best estimate of the age of the solar system 
derives from the age given to meteors—about 4.6 billion 
years old. Yet there is solid evidence that some Moon rocks 
and lunar soil itself indicate they’re far older than 
meteorites. Richard Lewis summarizes the problem: “The 
meteorites are the Rosetta Stones of the Solar System. They 
are dated 4.5 billion years. Since they are composed of 
primitive material, they are believed to be the earliest con¬ 
densates from the solar nebulae.” {The Voyages Qf Apollo,) 

Unquestionably, the evidence indicates that something 
was askew with the Moon. It appeared that the Moon just 
did not fit into our solar system family. But most NASA 
scientists stubbornly refused to believe that the Moon could 
be older than meteorites or Earth, let alone the solar sys¬ 
tem. They clung to their old orthodox view unwilling to 
allow their old theories to die in the face of overwhelming 
evidence. If the evidence does not fit, discard it, seemed to 
be their rule. Yet admittedly, early in the Apollo program, 
a NASA scientist stated the problem clearly: “The Moon 
is 4.6 billion years old, as old as the solar system itself 
and perhaps even older than the Earth.” 

Dr. Harold Urey, highly respected lunar expert does 


note, however, that when we say the Earth is that age we 
are, of course, making an assumption. Urey points out: 
“We have no proof.” Urey, as we shall see, was one of the 
scientific experts who came up with solid evidence that the 
Moon is much older than our Earth or our solar system. 
Proof which apparently has not been yet accepted—for 
NASA still clings stubbornly to that 4.6-billion-year limit. 
As Dr. Gerald Wasserburg, a jovial scientific scholar with 
a wit as sharp as his razorlike mind, responded when asked 
what hypothesis he favored concerning the Moon’s ap¬ 
proximate age; 

Some like it hot, 

Some like it cold, 

Some like it in the pot, 

4.6 billion years old. 

However, Wasserburg was so confused by the puzzles 
and problems of dating lunar materials brought back by 
our astronauts that he facetiously referred to his own scien¬ 
tific lab at Cal Tech as the “Lunatic Asylum” and himself 
and his co-workers as “inmates.” Stuffy orthodox scientists 
thought this was in poor taste and criticized him for it. 
Undaunted Wasserburg ignored the criticism and put a 
brass plate on the door of his lab. It reads: lunatic 

Wasserburg expresses a serious point in his lighthearted 
banter poking fun at himself and his lunar colleagues. The 
Moon with all its paradoxes, contradictions and perplexing 
conundrums is driving scientists crazy. 

Although NASA scientists claim agreement that the 
moon is no more than 4.6 billion years of age, still, ac¬ 
cording to Harvard’s Sky and Telescope , a highly respected 
astronomy journal, the Lunar Conference of 1973 revealed 
a moon rock that had been dated at 5.3 billion years old. 
Shockingly, this is nearly a billion years older than the 
oldest estimate ever given to Earth and the solar system 

Yet if we are to believe other claims, much older Moon 
samples have been brought back from this strange world 
circling our skies. For another report claimed that based 


on the potassium-argon system of dating, now accepted by 
science as the most accurate dating system, “some of the 
rocks gave an unacceptable age of 7 billion years.” (Editors 
of Pensees, Velikovsky Reconsidered , Doubleday, 1976.) 
This same journal refers to yet another study which asserts 
that “two Apollo XII rocks have been dated at 20 billion 
years of age.” This would be about four times the age of 
our planet! To this author’s knowledge, this is as old as 
the very oldest scientific estimate ever placed on any por¬ 
tion of the universe! 

Admittedly, as science writer Richard Lewis points out 
in his definitive work The Voyages of Apollo: “The dating 
game scientists played with the lunar rocks was charac¬ 
terized by discrepancy, inexactness and contradictory mea¬ 
surements.” Lewis notes that tests done to measuring the 
rocks’ decay of uranium and thorium led some scientists 
to come up with older figures than those obtained by 
potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium decay methods. 
Says Lewis: “Unless there was error, this implied that the 
uranium-lead system data were revealing materials more 
primitive than the rocks they formed.” 

The most popular way of explaining it, NASA Moon 
expert Leon Silver explains, “would be to suggest that the 
isotope systems of uranium, thorium and lead have a mem¬ 
ory of some prior stage of rock evolution.” ( The Voyages 
of Apollo,) 

Other evidence tends to prove that the Moon is much 
older than Earth and therefore had to come from some 
other corner of the universe. Dr. D. Heymann, expert 
geologist at Rice Institute, who examined the lunar surface 
soil, said that scientists found “an unusually large amount 
of argon-40, an isotope of the noble gas argon.” Walter 
Sullivan, former science editor of the New York Times , 
said that the surprising amount of this argon gas in Moon 
samples has shocking implications for man’s Moon. “The 
Moon would have to be 7 billion years old,” Dr. Heymann 
figured, to account for “an accumulation of argon-40. . . 
The implication here, of course, is that our Moon has not 
always been circling our planet. ( New York Times , January 
7, 1970.) 

Dr. Harold Urey came up with similar findings based 


on different evidence furnished by returned lunar samples. 
Urey claims that certain elements have been discovered on 
the Moon which indicate definitely that the Moon is much 
older than our Earth. Writing in the technical science jour¬ 
nal Chemistry , Urey claims that “moon rock has been 
shown to contain xenon isotopes from fission of plutonium- 
244 which are not found on earth. ...” This “indicated] 
that the moon is much older,” concludes Dr. Urey. {Chem¬ 
istry, February 1974.) 

If this is true, it would of course mean that the Moon 
came from somewhere else and was captured in Earth’s 
gravitational field sometime in Earth’s past. Urey agrees, 
noting; “But despite the evidence, most scientists feel the 
capture theory is unlikely.” {Chemistry, February 1974.) 

With all this weighty evidence on their hands, it is not 
surprising that rather early in our Apollo lunar program 
some scientists formulated a theory that would fit the Soviet 
spaceship hypothesis. According to Walter Sullivan in his 
article (“Some Startling Findings on Those Moon Rocks”): 
“Another proposal has been made that the Moon formed 
between the stars long before the Sun was born and then 
was captured by the solar system{New York Times 
September 21, 1969. Emphasis added.) 

He adds: “How it then was drawn into a stable orbit 
around the earth would be difficult to'explain.” 

Many scientists claim it’s not just difficult but nearly 
impossible. NASA scientist Dr. Robert Jastrow admits that 
“the difficulty with that theory is that such a capture is 
extremely unlikely. For capture to occur, the Moon must 
have come by the earth at exactly the right distance, neither 
so far away that it was whipped past the earth without 
dropping into orbit, nor so close as to be drawn into a 
collision course. Calculations indicate that the range of 
approach distances that will lead to capture is very narrow, 
and that the probability of capture is exceedingly minute. 

“Thus,” admits Jastrow, “at the present time there is no 
adequate explanation for the evidence of the Moon as 
Earth’s satellite.” {New York Times, November 9, 1969.) 

We note: The same thing is true today. Nothing can 
explain the mysteries of our Moon except the Soviet space¬ 
ship theory, which holds that our Moon (which is probably 


far older than our own star) formed out in the universe 
and was converted by unknown alien intelligences into a 
spaceship. At some indeterminate time in our past it was 
steered into orbit around our world. 

For to assume that it could have done this without in¬ 
telligent direction goes against all the laws of celestial 
mechanics, especially when one considers the Moon’s nearly 
circular orbit. 

For as Walter Sullivan concludes: “However, specialists 
in the movements of celestial bodies under the gravitational 
influence of one another—the science of celestial me¬ 
chanics—found it hard to explain how the moon, if it 
came from afar and was captured by the Earth’s gravity, 
achieved so well behaved and circular an orbit.” (New 
York Times , November 16, 1969.) 


We have seen the perplexing antiquity of Moon rocks. 
But another conundrum makes scientists even more puz¬ 
zled. The soil in which the Moon rocks lay proved to be 
generally a billion years older than the oldest of the ancient 
lunar rocks. The contradictory age of the soil really threw 
Moon scientists into a lunar tailspin. Rocks taken from the 
Sea of Tranquility as old as they were proved nothing com¬ 
pared to the soil in which they rested, which proved to be 
at least 4.6 billion years old. 

Other Apollo soil samples generally proved this lunar 
rule that the ancient soil was somehow older than the rocks. 
The Apollo 12 soil was a billion years older than the rocks 
that lay strewn in it. Scientists were absolutely bewildered, 
for this seemed to be utterly impossible. Scientists studying 
planets know that the soil is largely the powered remains 
of the rocks lying amid it. On the Moon, which for eons 
has been banged and bombarded by meteors and other 
heavenly missiles this should especially prove to be the 
case. To find rocks and pebbles on the Moon that were so 
old was perplexing enough, but to find that the soil in 
which they lay was approximately a billion years older 
really baffled scientists. 


If this were not enough, our bewildered scientists were 
staggered by additional puzzling discoveries that followed 
in rapid succession. Lunar experts soon found out through 
chemical analysis that the lunar soil did not come from 
the rocks around it but from somewhere else. Where our 
poor confused lunar experts could only guess. In truth, 
they simply do not know. 

At various yearly Lunar Science Conferences, which at¬ 
tract hundreds of scientists from all over the world not only 
as participants but as observers, this was one of the fore¬ 
most topics of discussion. At these so-called Lunar Rock 
Festivals (as the scientists themselves dubbed the gather¬ 
ings) researchers discussed various theories as to how lunar 
dirt and dust could be a billion years older than the rocks 
surrounding it. Where could it have come from? Says sci¬ 
ence reporter Richard Lewis: “In vain did one expert after 
another attempt explanations. . . .” In vain. 

Unfortunately, to our knowledge orthodox straitjacketed 
scientists never openly considered the Soviet spaceship the¬ 
ory that the Moon was fashioned out of a natural asteroid 
and converted into a spaceship. If they did they could 
have understood how it could be a cosmic body that old. 
Also hew it had to come from a much older section of the 
universe. But as it traveled through the cosmos, as Shelley 
puts it so strikingly, “among stars of different birth,” 
clearly it would have passed through different cosmic “time 
zones,” through areas much younger. In so doing it obvi¬ 
ously picked up rocks and dust particles in the form of 
meteors and meteorites (including micrometeorites). And 
this could account for the rocks being younger than the 
ancient lunar soil itself. Moreover, it would solve another 
puzzling problem about the Moon. For although scientists 
found it nearly impossible to reconcile the great difference 
in the age of soil and Moon rocks, there also proved to be 
significant age differences among the rocks and rubble of 
the Moon itself. Scientists also were in a quandary over the 
age discrepancy of lunar rocks discovered lying side by 
side. As our astronauts made more and more trips to the 
Moon and took more and more samples, our Moon experts 
became more perplexed and mystified. Yet this too, in light 
of the Soviet theory, is understandable, for if our Spaceship 


Moon did travel through the cosmos it would necessarily 
have picked up rocks and particles of widely different ages. 
This much is clear: The Soviet Spaceship Moon theory 
makes understandable yet another Moon mystery I 


What is the Moon made of? Certainly not green cheese, 
although Dr. O. L. Anderson now of the University of 
California (Los Angeles) reports striking similarities be¬ 
tween the characteristics of lunar rocks and some cheeses. 
Strangely enough, astronauts also reported that at certain 
times under the pale greenish-blue earthlight, the surface 
of the Moon reflects a greenish hue. 

One of the major findings of the Apollo explorations is 
that the Moon is “chemically different at different depths.” 
Scientists have concluded that the Moon does not have the 
simplistic billiard-ball make-up that some scientists former¬ 
ly conjectured it might. It is not homogeneous throughout. 

Moreover, the composition is strikingly different from 
that of our Earth. From the more than a dozen different 
American and Soviet manned and unmanned explorations 
of Luna, we learned, much to our surprise, that our satellite 
is quite different in make-up. Elements have been discov¬ 
ered on her in great abundance which are extremely rare 
on Earth. Even more surprising, some elements found on 
the Moon have never previously been known to exist here 
in their natural forms. The Argone National Laboratory 
reported at the Third Scientific Conference in Houston that 
they had found uranium 236 and neptunium 237 in lunar 
samples taken by Apollo 12 and 14, elements never pre¬ 
viously found before in nature! 

A compound never before known to exist was a strange 
component called by Earth scientists “Kreep.” It contains 
a high content of potassium, rare Earth elements, and 
phosphorous. This compound was discovered in Apollo 12 
samples and dated at about 4.5 billion years old. The 
mysterious component is believed to be a part of the 


Moon’s ancient crust, although this contention has been 

Moon scientists also announced the discovery of an 
entirely new mineral found in lunar samples. Science News 
reported (January 10, 1970) that this “unnamed mineral 
is a titanium-iron-zirconium silicate with concentrations of 
calcium and yttrium and lesser amounts of eight other ele¬ 
ments including aluminum and sodium.” 

Many of these, as the reader now undoubtedly recog¬ 
nizes, are metallic elements with a very high melting point, 
those tough metals known as refractory elements. 

We have already seen that scientists are puzzled as to the 
source of the intense heat required to melt and fuse these 
metals on the Moon. Although Earth scientists have not yet 
resolved this difficulty (except for the two Soviet scientists), 
it becomes clear that it was done through artificial means 
in the process of creating this cosmic Noah’s Ark. 

Dr. S. Ross Taylor, the geochemist in charge of chemical 
analysis for NASA, observed that it is strange that highly 
refractory metals should be found in such great abundance 
on the Moon, especially titanium, a metal used on Earth 
in building spaceships and supersonic jets. He called it a 
“fortuitous metal to find on the Moon”—a very apt metal 
for our Spaceship Moon. And this is an apt comparison, 
for if the Soviet researchers are correct in their theory that 
our Moon is really a hollowed-out spaceship then his re¬ 
mark is striking. 


The Moon's composition is not at all what it should 
be had the Moon been formed in its present orbit 
around the earth, 

— Dr, Harold Urey , Science News 

October 4 , 1972 , p, 246, 

A close corollary of this second mystery is another mys¬ 
tery—“the moon differs from the Earth in a very strange 
way,” notes Ubell. 


Before man went to our Moon most scientists believed 
that our satellite was formed out of the same cosmic cloud 
as Earth, born with it about 4.6 billion years ago. It was 
therefore expected that its composition would be similar 
to that of our own planet. But again another big surprise: 
It isn't. Our lunar companion differs radically in make-up 
from Earth—and in a very mystifying way. 

From our many unmanned and manned trips to the 
Moon scientists have gotten a fairly complete picture of 
our neighboring world, even though admittedly it is a very 
confusing one. Naturally, of course, since the lunar evi¬ 
dence gathered is limited, what we can learn about our 
Moon is limited. But then, we have difficulty in getting a 
complete understanding of the Earth under our feet, too. 

Earl Ubell does point out: “Certainly none of our astro¬ 
nauts dug a hole 25 miles deep to determine the chemistry 
down there, but nature provided the shovel in the form of 
incoming meteorites that blasted very deep holes, and 
brought up the underlying rocks. Each of the Apollo land¬ 
ings, particularly Apollo 15, was designed to set down in 
areas where the dug-up rocks would have landed.” 

So we know a little more than our few trips’ worth of 
rocks and data might indicate. Scientists, in fact, have 
learned enough about our neighbor to come to this con¬ 
clusion, expressed by Dr. Don Anderson, professor of geo¬ 
physics and director of the seismological laboratory at Cal 
Tech: “The Moon’s composition is not all what it should 
be had the Moon been formed in its present orbit around 
the Earth.” (Physics Today, March 1974.) 

In general scientists like Anderson are puzzled not only 
by the differing elemental make-up of the Moon, but also 
over the question of why the Moon is so strangely chem¬ 
ically zoned, with its surface enriched in the refractory 
elements and its interior seemingly devoid of iron, the iron 
content seemingly plentiful in the maria and in one layer 
beneath the surface. 

The abundance of the refractory elements like titanium 
in the surface areas is so pronounced that several geo¬ 
chemists proposed that refractory compounds were brought 
to the Moon’s surface in great quantity in some unknown 
way. They don’t know how, but that it was done cannot be 
questioned. These rich materials that are usually concen- 


trated in the interior of a world are now on the outside. 

In fact, the Moon is so strange in this respect that Dr. 
Anderson proposes that “the Moon was made inside out.” 
(Physics Today , March 1974.) 

We ask: Isn’t what NASA scientists like Anderson con¬ 
cluded exactly what would be expected if the Soviet theory 
of a hollowed-out “inside-out” world were correct? We 
suggest that if we accept this Soviet spaceship theory of 
a hollowed-out planetoid, then the internal lunar materials 
—the insides, as it were—would have necessarily been 
brought to the surface during the process of hollowing it 
out, so that the Moon would naturally appear to have been 
made “inside out.” 

Furthermore, the fact that Luna is deficient in iron ex¬ 
cept for that strange layer under its outer crust and the 
iron-rich, titanium-rich maria again is understandable in 
light of the Soviet theory. For alien beings, the Soviet 
spaceship scientists maintain, used these materials in the 
formation of the spaceship’s inner hull—that strange inner 
layer—and in flooding the Moon’s outer crust, which they 
claim is really part of the outer patchwork shell. 

The Moon, in short, appears to be an inside-out world 
because it is, in fact, a hollowed-out spaceship. This is just 
another piece of the puzzle that indicates that the planetoid 
circling us is nothing but a huge spacecraft. 


The upper eight miles of the Moon are radioactive 
with uranium, thorium and potassium . . . enough to 
produce a heart-breaking conundrum . . . How in 
the world did the radioactivity get to the top? 

—Earl Ubell, u The Moon Is More of a Mysteiy Than 
Ever” The New York Times Magazine, April 16, 1972 

Before man went to the Moon most Earth scientists 
thought that our satellite was formed cool, and it was 
believed by most scientists that it contained lesser amounts 
of radioactive substances than our Earth, its supposed sister 


However, even here there is a puzzler. For this is not 
the case at all. Ever since November 1971, when a ther¬ 
mometer placed by Apollo 15 astronauts turned up star¬ 
tlingly high temperatures scientists have been befuddled 
by the unusual heat problem. Extremely high readings 
here indicated that the temperature flow near the Apen- 
nine Mountains was very hot indeed. In fact, one sci¬ 
entist confessed: “When we saw that we said, ‘My God, 
this place is about to melt! The core must be very hot.’ ” 

This, it should be noted, merely indicated to scientists 
a high amount of radioactivity in this one area, and not 
necessarily a hot core or a hot Moon. Other measurements 
and data have since shown that the Moon’s core is rela¬ 
tively cool. 

Yet radioactive elements have been found to exist in the 
surface of the Moon in surprisingly great amounts. The 
amount of radioactive materials already measured in lunar 
samples is, as one NASA scientist put it, “embarrassingly 

Even the early Apollo samples, such as those taken by 
Armstrong and Aldrin, revealed material containing ura¬ 
nium four times higher than in typical Earth rocks and 
fifteen times higher than in meteorites.* The bulk of ma¬ 
terial inside the Moon could not be this rich in radioactive 
uranium, for then the interior would be much hotter than 
is evident from the Moon’s temperature. 

In fact, if the Apollo 15 samples were representative of 
the Moon, enough heat would have been generated to melt 
the entire Moon. Similar data from the Apollo 17 site 
shows that it appears to be high in radioactivity also. It 
would seem to mean, then, that the Moon has far greater 
abundance of radioactive elements than our Earth. Why, 
scientists can only conjecture. 

Many conclude that most of the Moon’s radioactive ele¬ 
ments must be concentrated in the upper regions. Other¬ 
wise it would be completely molten. In fact, scientists now 
estimate that the upper 8 miles of the Moon are radio¬ 
active with uranium, thorium, and potassium. 

As Earl Ubell notes, “not so radioactive that it is dan- 

* Rock samples collected from Sea of Storms has twenty times more 
uranium, thorium, and potassium than other lunar samples. 


gerous to astronauts who trod the surface but enough to 
produce a head-breaking conundrum. How in the world 
did the radioactivity get to the top?” 

Theories abound. Just to mention one: “In the earliest 
melting of the Moon the radioactive elements were carried 
upward with the slag. Need I add the idea has its fervent 
detractors?” writes Ubell. 

This appears to be another solution to this mystery. In 
light of the Soviet spaceship theory there is an understand¬ 
able answer to the conundrum, which, need I add, also 
will have its army of detractors. 

If alien beings used intense amounts of radioactive ele¬ 
ments to melt and hollow out interior portions of their 
Spaceship Moon, with the advanced technology obviously 
at their disposal they could have melted and poured out the 
interior onto the surface, using the proper mix of radio¬ 
active substances to generate sufficient heat to do this. 
This could thus account for the existence of such high 
amounts of radioactive elements found in the upper regions 
of the Moon. 

Many lunar experts do believe that heat generated by 
radioactive substances (of course, in a natural way) melted 
much of the Moon’s surface. However, another problem 
surfaces with the natural explanation, as many scientists 
have pointed out. Many top Moon scientists insist that 
melting of rocks through radioactivity is a slow process 
and hardly could be responsible for the quick , massive 
melting that obviously took place. This indicates it was not 
a natural process. 

But, as we have observed, artificial methods of an ad¬ 
vanced technology could have used concentrated amounts 
of radioactive elements to produce this rapid melting that 
obviously was there . 

Maybe this is why so many radioactive substances and 
radioactive “hot spots” have been found on the Moon’s 
surface, despite the fact that we have made only six trips 
to this strange world circling Earth. 

Of course, this might be all sheer conjecture. But it is 
interesting to note that it does solve the problem and the 
puzzler as to how the radioactive elements did get to the 
top, and also makes understandable how radioactive sub- 


stances could cause a quick, rapid melting. It also makes 
clear why these elements exist in such great amounts on 
the Moon. 

The two Soviet spaceship theorists point out that they 
are convinced that the huge flat lunar plains of solidified 
lava were artificially produced by intense amounts of 
melted rock and mineral elements from the interior. It is 
interesting and important to note that according to Science 
News (April 7, 1973), “where elevation is high [highlands] 
the amount of radioactive material is low, where elevation 
is low, the amount of radioactive material is high. . . . 
This suggests to some that the radioactive rich basalts were 
a lava flow early in the Moon’s history that filled in the 
lower regions of the Moon.” 

This suggests to us that it was used to cause such flows. 
Another lunar mystery that again proves understandable 
only in light of the Soviet spaceship theory! 



* * 

.. . a million times as dry as the Gobi Desert. 

—Gerald Wasserburg 

The first few trips to our Moon indicated to scientists 
that the Moon was a dry, dry world. Apollo 11, 12, and 
14 had failed to find even the slightest trace of water on 
the surface of our neighbor. Also, the attenuated seismic 
responses led many scientists to claim that the Moon just 
had to be completely dry. NASA Assistant Director of 
Lunar Science Dr. Richard Allenby concluded: “There is 
no evidence in the rocks or geochemistry that water exists.” 
In fact, the Moon was so dry that it prompted one scientist 
to make the observation that the Moon was a million times 
as dry as our Gobi Desert. 

Then came Apollo 15 and the scientific world was 
rocked back on its heels again. A cloud of water vapor 
covering more than 100 square miles was discovered on 
the surface of the Moon. 

Earl Ubell in his article “The Moon Is More of a Mys- 


tery Than Ever” says: “The Moon is dry, drier than the 
most dry of terrestrial deserts, and it doesn’t seem to have 
ever had water in substantial amounts either on top or 
deep down. . . . Scientists were feeling very confident about 
the dryness when suddenly one of the instruments left on 
the Moon by the Apollo 15 broadcast back to earth on 
March 7, 1971, a signal that indicated a wind of water had 
swept across the Moon.” 

Where could a cloud of water vapor 100 square miles 
have come from? The two Rice University physicists who 
made the discovery. Dr. John Freeman, Jr., and Dr. H. Ken 
Hills, pored over the data and claimed that the water must 
have come from deep down inside the Moon. 

Red-faced NASA scientists, however, first tried to pass 
off this cloud of water as coming from two water tanks 
of an Apollo descent stage left on the Moon. These two 
tiny tanks—60 to 100 pounds of water—NASA scientists 
tried to make the world believe created the 100-square-mile 

The Rice University SIDE (Siiperthermal /on Detectors) 
team noted that this could not be the case since the two 
detectors were located some 180 kilometers apart, yet the 
vapor was detected with the same flux at both sites. More¬ 
over, they were pointed outward in the opposite directions, 
yet both had strong readings. Hence, concluded SIDE re¬ 
searchers, the water came from inside the Moonl 

A few stubborn NASA scientists speculated that this 
100-square-mile water vapor cloud might have come from 
the astronauts’ urine which had been dumped into the lunar 
skies. This too was rejected by the SIDE scientists. 

Although our first few astronaut teams on the Moon 
failed to bring back a shred of evidence that indicated the 
Moon had any water at all, our Apollo 16 astronauts did 
find rocks that contained rusted iron, and this indicated 
the presence of water somewhere on the Moon. For to have 
rust one must have oxygen and free hydrogen—this proves 
that there must be water on the Moon. 

Scientists now admit that water exists there because evi¬ 
dence of hydrous material found on the Moon was con¬ 
firmed by the University of Cambridge lunar science team. 
And B. J. Skinner of Yale University concluded: “The 


evidence seems good that we have the first hydrous mineral 
found on the Moon.” ( Science News , January 29, 1972.) 

The water vapor problem may not seem too big a mys¬ 
tery from the standpoint of us water-world inhabitants. But 
its discovery absolutely astonished lunar experts. As the 
Science News states (October 23, 1971): “The presence 
or absence of water on the Moon is central to theories of 
lunar origin and development.” 

The impact of the water discovery was momentous. As 
lunar expert Dr. Farouk El Baz, then a leading NASA 
geologist, noted: “If water vapor is coming from the 
moon’s interior this is serious. It means that there is a dras¬ 
tic distinction between the different phases in the lunar 
interior—that the interior is quite different from what we 
have seen on the surface.” ( Science News , October 23, 

How this can be perplexes scientists. But according to 
the Soviet hollow-Moon theory, our satellite has huge 
internal areas filled with gases for some kind of atmosphere 
to sustain life. Could these gases, which might include 
water vapor, be escaping through cracks and crevasses 
from the lunar interior out onto the surface of the Moon? 
The SIDE team scientists did conclude from their careful 
study that indeed the water vapor actually came from the 
Moon’s deep interior. It would seem then that the water 
vapor clouds could have come from our hollow Spaceship 
Moon. In fact, there appears to be no other solution to the 
sudden discovery of this great cloud of water on this dry, 
dry world. 


We don't know what the magnetic story is but we do 
know that there are some very strange magnetic prop¬ 
erties in these rocks which were not expected . 

— Dr. Paul Gast 

On the first Soviet and American flights to the Moon, 
tests indicated that it had little or no magnetic field. Then 


lunar rocks were discovered that were strongly magnetized. 
These rocks contained in effect “fossil magnetic fields” 
frozen into them, indicating that the Moon either once 
possessed or at least went through a global magnetic field 
of considerable strength. 

This was a surprise to scientists, for the Moon was with¬ 
out a magnetic field—and it was assumed it had been 
without such a field in all its long existence. Then the dis¬ 
covery of the magnetized rocks. 

The late great lunar expert Dr. Paul Gast, a geophysicist 
at Columbia University, observed: “We don’t know what 
the magnetic story is, but we do know that there are some 
very strange magnetic properties in these rocks which are 
not expected.” (Lunar Rock Conference, Smithsonian In¬ 
stitution, Washington, D.C., 1969.) 

If, as the evidence indicates, the Moon did actually pos¬ 
sess a strong magnetic field, this presents a bitter conun¬ 
drum. For then it must have had a big iron core. But 
equally valid data and evidence show that a large hot core 
could never have existed inside the Moon. 

What about the possibility that the Moon came close 
enough to Earth’s magnetic fields to cause the Moon rocks 
to be magnetized? 

As Ubell puts it: “If the moon were once near the earth 
so that the earth’s magnetic field could magnetize moon 
rocks, the two bodies would have been so close that the 
moon would break up under the gravitational pull of the 
earth. And so on. Any ideas?” 

Scientists seem to be caught here on the horns of a 
dilemma. Evidence that the Moon had or at one time 
entered a fairly strong magnetic field is certain. The origin 
of such a field is a mystery to scientists, for the Moon does 
not have a magnetic field now and scientists find it hard 
to believe it ever could have had one. 

Then where did the magnetic field come from that left 
its telltale imprint on these rocks? Where did it go if it was 
the Moon’s? Says Richard Lewis, “scientists calculated 
the magnetic field had to be as strong as 36 gamma field 
which is powerful.” 

Either that or the Moon had to pass through “extremely 
powerful solar magnetic or electric fields, which no longer 
exist.” That presents the problem of why the fragile Moon 


did not break into bits, if it got that close to a body, such 
as Earth, emanating such a field. For to acquire the mag¬ 
netism, it would have had to come that close. (The Voyages 
of A polio .) 

Here is where the Soviet spaceship theory again fits in so 
beautifully, resolving all these difficulties. With its strong 
internal hull, there would be no problems of being torn 
apart, even if the Moon did come close to another cosmic 
body. Such a celestial tug of war might cause the Moon to 
be lopsided (which it in fact is!), but its strong internal 
hull or shell would keep it intact. And, incidentally, the 
bulge on the far side of the Moon also indicates that the 
Moon does have tremendous internal strength and may 
have been in such a celestial tug of war at one time. 

Did this happen when the Moon came near Earth? No 
one knows for sure. However, considering the age of Space¬ 
ship Moon, the opportunities for this to happen were 

NASA scientist Paul Gast confessed before his, death: 
“One of the exciting things about this paradox or enigma 
[of magnetism] is [that] perhaps behind all of this is an 
explanation that none of us are Ithinking about today. Even¬ 
tually some smart person will sit down and have a bright 
idea which explains it all.*’ ( Science News, May 27, 1972.) 

We are convinced that the Soviet scientists with their 
Spaceship Moon is the answer! For the artificial moon 
theory dissolves all these difficulties and, in fact, makes a 
lunar magnetic field not only plausible but likely. 


The puzzler here is that a cool moon contradicts other 
data that lead science to conclude that the Moon once 
had a molten core and a magnetic field . 

—Earl Uhelly “The Moon Is More of a Mystery Than 
Ever,” The New York Times Magazine, April 16,1972 

One of the greatest controversies revolving around the 
Moon before man went up to examine this strange world 
for himself was the question of whether the Moon was a 


hot or a cold body. A major question that seemed to grip 
lunar experts before Apollo was: Is the Moon, like Earth, 
a “living,” internally hot body? Or is it, as Schopenhauer 
described it more than a century ago, “a frozen moon,” 
cold and dead throughout? 

The majority of scientists who had given this Moon 
matter any attention had come to look upon the Moon as 
a dead world, much as did the science-fiction writer H. G. 
Wells, who viewed it as a place of pockmarked craters, 
dead volcanoes, and lava wildernesses. 

However, there were scientists like American astrono¬ 
mer Ralph Baldwin, whose intensive studies indicated to 
him that the Moon is a live hot ball. When Baldwin first 
undertook his pioneering studies, one of his professors said 
to him: “Why are you wasting your time on the Moon? 
It is dead and gone!” 

But Baldwin’s persistence convinced him and a large 
group of lunar scientists studying the Moon that this 
mysterious orb was in fact hot inside—or at least was at 
one time. 

Nevertheless, most lunar experts remained skeptical cold- 
Mooners, despite the hundreds of transient lunar events, 
such as glows and lights seen on the Moon’s surface, which 
other scientists tried to pass off as “volcanic activity.” Some 
lunar experts, in fact, even openly scoffed at the idea that 
the Moon was ever hot enough to melt rock. 

However, enough scientists were around who thought the 
Moon was still hot enough to possibly have active vol¬ 
canoes so that some astronauts (Apollo 11) were even 
shown erupting volcanoes in Hawaii before they made 
their trip to Luna. Why? Because some scientists thought 
our astronauts might run into a few on the Moon! 

On the other hand, a few scientists, like Dr. Harold 
Urey, doubted that there ever was any volcanic activity on 
our neighboring satellite. Urey claimed he could “show 
mathematically that the Moon was too small a body to have 
generated the kind of heat that would have resulted in lava 
flows covering entire maria.” Observed Urey: “No geologist 
has yet been able to show me how you can get lava flows 
out of the Moon.” (Henry Cooper’s Moon Rocks.) 

When his scientific opponents claimed that radioactive 
materials in rocks could have heated up the Moon enough 


to do this, Urey pointed out that this presents then another 
unanswerable problem. For if there had been sufficient 
radioactive-gene rated heat to melt rocks inside the Moon 
and start lava flows, then the Moon’s interior should be 
hot today, as is Earth’s. However, it is not. 

Why should this be true? Astrophysicists claim that once 
a body the size of the Moon had heated up enough to 
melt its interior, it could not have cooled down within the 
time the Moon is supposed to have existed, since this 2000- 
mile-thick rock world is a pretty good “thermos ball,” 
well insulated to keep its heat from dissipating. Thus it is 
difficult to explain its relatively cold condition today. 

Unquestionably, however, there is evidence that our 
Moon was once very hot. It is everywhere on the Moon— 
especially in the maria, in its apparent huge volcanic lava 
flows. Even the first close-up American photos of the Moon 
showed to Baldwin and other scientists that the Moon was 
indeed a hot body, at least at one time. As Baldwin himself 
put it: “Surveyor [an early manned Moon probe] killed off 
the possibility of a cold moon!” 

Later Apollo-obtained evidence of a once-hot moon was 
compelling. NASA scientist Dr. Gerald Wasserburg, pointed 
this out when he said “once [the Moon] got itself all hot 
and bothered and melted perhaps down to a depth of 100 
kilometers.” However, he added that scientists are unable 
to explain how it got that hot, when it did, and how it 
cooled off. {New York Times, January 12, 1971.) 

But unquestionably, as Apollo results began to flow back 
to Earth, cold Mooners went into a decline. But the hot- 
Mooners were in trouble too. 

As Earl Ubell noted in “The Moon Is More of a Mys¬ 
tery Than Ever”: “The cold-mooners are in trouble because 
they have no way to heat up the Moon once the first melt¬ 
ing, 4.6 billion years ago, had cooled down. [It was believed 
this was the beginning of the Moon as a hot ball.] The only 
way they can supply the heat for the subsequent melts is to 
place the radioactivity within the moon in just the right way 
so that it creates the melts at the right time. This, in turn, 
as Dr. Paul Gast of the Lunar Receiving Laboratory sug¬ 
gests, means that the moon was formed in different chem¬ 
ical layers instead of as a uniform mass.” 


But the hot-Mooners are in a dilemma trying to explain 
the evidence that shows the Moon is relatively cold today, 
since they have no theory to explain the mechanics that 
shut down this heating process. 

Furthermore, the hot-Mooners are having difficulty try¬ 
ing to explain the other evidence that shows that the Moon 
is extremely rigid and cold on the inside—as, for example, 
the peculiar long virbrations that seismometers record after 
various impactings show, as does the existence of the 
strange bulge. 

Yet another mystery is the high content of titanium 
found in rocks taken from the Sea of Tranquility—three 
times the amount found on Earth, in some instances more 
than ten times the amount! 

The problem here is that scientists—even hot-Mooners 
—find it difficult to believe that the Moon was ever hot 
enough to have produced the melted rock that formed the 
titanium-rich maria. Even our own hot planet Earth is not 
that hot! Not a single scientist, not even the hot-Mooners 
has ever offered an adequate answer to this perplexing 

Today lunar experts are still strongly debating whether 
the Moon is hot or cold. Some data support the fact that 
it is hot; other evidence that scientists of the cold school 
can marshal tends to indicate that our satellite must be 
cold. Thus, the results of the various Apollo missions seem 
to contradict each other. One fact after another seems to 
cancel previously established facts and findings. No wonder 
today scientists find themselves in a confused quandary. No 
wonder Ubell states that “the moon is more of a mystery 
than ever.” 

We have already seen so many areas where this is true. 
We have seen hot-Mooners squirming over evidence that 
shows the Moon to be internally rigid which is indicated by 
its nonspherical shape and lopsided bulge. We have seen 
that the internal existence of mascons indicates that it is 
cold and rigid inside. And we have already noted that the 
peculiar vibrations that are transmitted throughout the in¬ 
terior over great distances and for long durations definitely 
indicate that it is rigid and cold in the interior. 

On the other hand, cold-Mooners are having difficulty 


explaining away the existence of once-strong magnetic 
fields, which many scientists claim required a molten-hot 
lunar core to create. Which, by the way, also leaves the 
hot-Mooners with the dilemma of getting the temperature 
inside down to where it is today—relatively cold. 

As Dr. Paul Gast, chief planetary and Earth sciences 
specialist at NASA, who was a cold-Mooner asserted: “If it 
[the Moon] was at one time completely molten or near the 
melting point, then it is rather difficult to get it today, deep 
in the interior, down to the temperatures that [now] exist.” 
Some would say that is impossible. 

As Dr. Charles Sonnett, deputy director of NASA’s Ames 
Research Center in Mountain View, California, concludes: 
“A core that is cool now almost precludes the Moon ever 
having a hot core, as the cooling mechanism is impossible 
to explain.” (Science News , January 23, 1971.) 

The core is relatively cool—even hot-Mooners now ad¬ 
mit that. How then to resolve these contradictions and di¬ 

Dr. Nowell Hinns of Bell Communications Inc. calls Dr. 
Sonnett’s findings spectacular. The puzzler here is that a 
cool Moon contradicts other data that lead other, equally 
competent scientists to conclude that the Moon once had a 
molten core, once had a strong magnetic field, once was 
definitely hot. Where do we go from here? 

To the Soviet theory! For it alone can make the con¬ 
tradictions and paradoxes understandable. It dissolves the 
impossibilities of these contradictions. If, as Soviet scientists 
Vasin and Shcherbakov maintain, some technology such as 
properly developed and placed radioactivity could make 
the Moon extremely hot and send oceans of lava to its sur¬ 
face, hollowing out its interior would have been easy. Then 
we would have a way of heating up the Moon to a tempera¬ 
ture hot enough to melt elements like titanium; then we 
would have an explanation for all the evidence of volcanic 
melting on the surface of an essentially cold moon. Nor 
would a large hot core be necessary for this. In fact, some 
scientists believe that the tiny core the Moon might have 
once had was melted and poured out onto the surface, in 
part forming the maria which we now se.e as huge circular 
dark seas. 


This would explain Urey’s contradictory position of the 
impossibility of a cold Moon on the one hand and on the 
other, the irrefutable evidence of a once-hot Moon that 
Baldwin’s evidence and the Apollo evidence indicate. 

For as Ubell pointed out: “The only way they [the cold- 
Mooners] can supply the heat for the subsequent melts 
[after the first initial melt] is to place the radioactivity with¬ 
in the Moon in just the right way so that it creates the 
melts at the right time.” 


One difficulty that we have wrestled with is the heat of 
the deep interior that some scientists say exists. Although 
lunar experts claim for the most part that our Moon is in¬ 
ternally a “relatively cool” body, some claim that at its 
core (which, amazingly, much evidence indicates does not 
exist!) it is still as hot as 1000 degrees. That is hot enough 
to melt lead. (Admittedly, our Earth is much hotter— 
somewhere between 3600 and 5000 degrees.) 

Surely here is proof positive that the Moon could not be 
a spaceship? 

Not necessarily, for, as we shall see, not only are sci¬ 
entists not sure it is hot but insist there is every evidence 
that it is, in fact, a cold body. Secondly, remember that 
if the Moon does have artificial construction on the inside 
and is a spaceship, all kinds of things are possible, from 
nuclear furnaces to a huge artificial sun that any such 
inside-out spaceship must have to lighten its dark in¬ 

But even aside from this, scientists are divided, some 
insisting that the Moon could not be anything but a cold 
body internally. 

How did those scientists who are convinced that it is 
hot arrive at this temperature? How did they measure the 
temperature inside this chunk of rock 2100 miles thick 
and over 235,000 miles away from our planet? 

Earl Ubell gives us a clear explanation in his article “The 
Moon Is More of a Mystery Than Ever,” for he, too, tackles 
this problem of whether the Moon is a hot or a cold world. 


He points out that every schoolboy (or schoolgirl, for that 
matter) knows from his grade-school science classes that a 
magnet placed under a piece of paper sprinkled with iron 
filings will arrange the iron particles into a pattern 
which shows the strength and direction of the magnetic 
field generated by the magnet When you place another 
piece of iron near the magnet, that field will distort and the 
iron filings will change position and rearrange themselves. 
Actually, any metal or other material will distort the field 
to some extent , and by measuring the distortion scientists 
can determine the magnetic and electric properties of the 
disturbing body. 

We have measured the magnetic fields around Earth and 
the Moon. Our Sun generates a strong magnetic field which 
envelops both our planet and our neighbor the Moon. Our 
lunar satellite Explorer 35 measured that magnetism. Our 
Apollo 12 astronauts also placed a device on the Moon 
which measured the Moon-made distortions in this magnetic 
field, and physicists were therefore able to obtain a good 
idea of the magnetic properties of the Moon. 

What has this to do with the-inside temperature of the 
Moon? Scientists have known that the electrical properties 
of a body vary in relation to its temperature. From these 
properties, they can get a good indication of the tempera¬ 
ture of that body. In fact, scientists have actually worked 
out mathematical formulas based on this relationship. Ex¬ 
perts using these formulas have determined that the max¬ 
imum internal temperatures of the Moon are between 1000 
and 1800° F. This is the maximum . It could be much 
cooler, and many scientists insist it must be. 

However, as we have just noted, any metal or other 
similar material will distort the field. If this is true, then we 
can see we will have problems with the accuracy of heat 
measurements of our Moon, since it is loaded with metals, 
including a complete metallic shell on the inside! For, as 
our Soviet scientists, theorize, this Spaceship Moon has an 
inner hull created by alien beings to protect themselves in 
their cosmic journey through the universe. We have seen 
there is strong evidence today that this iron does exist, in 
addition to many other concentrations of metal; there is the 
very real possibility of artificial construction—like the 


huge girderlike blocks of metal 1000 kilometers long that 
may exist inside our Moon! Thus, clearly the results of 
any temperature studies would be highly inaccurate, to say 
the least. 

In addition, the temperature readings have been taken 
in only a few spots on the Moon. Our first attempt to place 
heat-temperature measuring equipment ended in failure 
when on the Apollo 15 expedition David Scott unfortu¬ 
nately stumbled, ripping out the wires of this sensitive heat 
temperature equipment. 

However, Scott and his partner James Irwin did succeed 
(after many tries) in drilling a hole in the lunar surface 
and placing in it a thermometer. 

In November 1971, the thermometer readings indicated 
that the heat flow in that area (near the lunar Apennine 
Mountains) was two thirds the Earth’s average ! For an orb 
as small as the Moon, that is very hot! As one scientist 
exclaimed: “When we saw that we said, *My God, this place 
is about to melt! The core must be very hot.’ ” 

However, this, as the scientists themselves well knew, 
was an isolated reading. And what evidence do scientists 
have today for determining the Moon’s internal heat? A 
few isolated readings. We have noted the large number of 
radioactive hot spots already found on or near the surface 
of this strange world. Considering this, it is doubtful that 
these few readings are very accurate. NASA clearly admits 
that many hot spots have been found on the Moon (just 
as on Earth) where there is a much higher heat flow than 
the average. (Yellowstone National Park is a good example 
for Earth.) So any estimate of the inside temperature of 
Luna based on this is hazardously uncertain. 

Dr. Michael Yates of Bell Comm Inc. claims: “The mag¬ 
netism results from Apollo 12 seem to be supplanting the 
seismic results in importance since the magnetism relates 
to the Moon as a whole.” (Science News, January 23, 

Although he believes that findings do show that tempera¬ 
tures increase to a depth of about 200 kilometers, he also 
is convinced that they decrease again. From this he con¬ 
cludes that the Moon is a relatively cool body, certainly 
well below the melting point of most solids. 


We have also seen the seismic studies show the Moon 
vibrating throughout like a huge bell, and that this indi¬ 
cates by itself that the Moon interiorly is cold and rigid. 
Similarly, deep seismic disturbances show the Moon to be 
rigid and cold. The highly regarded Science magazine notes: 
“Possible focal depths as great as 900 km. may favor the 
thermal stress hypothesis, but there is considerable evidence 
that melting temperatures may not be reached at any depth 
in the moon. Relatively low internal temperatures are indi¬ 
cated by the existence of mascons and by the non-equilib¬ 
rium figure of the moon which imply considerable internal 
strength.” (Emphasis added.) 

There is also much other evidence that our Moon is in¬ 
ternally not hot but a cold orb. Many studies have led to 
this conclusion. Here are a few: 

English scientist C. A. Cross published his study “The 
Thermal History of the Moon” in the authoritative inter¬ 
national lunar journal The Moon . He says . . for Various 
reasons the outward flow of heat must be smaller than is 
presently supposed.” {The Moon, An International Journal 
of Lunar Studies , Vol. 4, 1972.) 

Dr. Marcus Langseth of Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty 
Geological Institute also warns that for various reasons 
“we cannot extrapolate the temperature increases with 
depth.” Dr. Langseth also claims that those few high heat 
flow measurements that have been taken “could be a local 
anomaly.” {The Moon , Vol. 6, 1973.) 

We have seen how much intense radioactivity permeates 
the upper 8 miles of the Moon, with hot spots everywhere. 
This too could be affecting the evidence for a hot Moon. 

NASA scientists Dr. D. L. Anderson and T. C. Hanks 
point out in their article “Is the Moon Hot or Cold?” that 
there are many problems with any theory of a hot moon, 
among these the non-spherieal shape of the Moon, the 
mascons, the remarkable seismic responses and conduc¬ 
tivity evidence! All suggest the lunar interior is “cold and, 
by implication has always been cold.” {Science , Vol. 178, 

Nobel prize winner Dr. Harold Urey stated bluntly: 
“The geologists are going to be in for an-awful jolt when 
they find the Moon isn’t volcanic in the way the Earth is. 


I keep telling these geologists to let their imaginations go!” 
(Henry Cooper’s Moon Rocks.) 

Little did Dr. Urey realize the full impact of his pre¬ 
diction. Henry Cooper in his fine book Moon Rocks com¬ 
menting on Urey’s remarks says: “A hot moon would have 
to have had a hot core.” Did it? In the orthodox view, yes. 
The problem with this is that equally valid data indicate 
that the Moon could never have had a hot core—at least 
not naturally. 

And this is the key word—■ naturally . How can you have 
a hot core when evidence indicates that the Moon could 
never have had a hot core naturally? But Vasin and Shcher¬ 
bakov maintain that it could have been done artificially 
through advanced alien technology’s reshaping of this nat¬ 
ural world into an artificially created spaceship. 

So maybe Urey’s old mathematical proof is not wrong 
after all—maybe the Moon is too small a body to have 
generated the kind of heat that would have resulted in lava 
flows covering entire maria. Maybe the Moon was heated 
up artificially with advanced technological means by intelli¬ 
gent beings to accomplish what appears impossible to Earth 
scientists. This, as we have seen, undoubtedly involved large 
amount of radioactive elements placed in proper fashion 
within the Moon. 

Technologically advanced aliens could have “heated” 
the Moon, sending seas of lava to the exterior surface 
initially as they hollowed out inner portions and later on 
at various times to reinforce certain weakened outer areas. 
Thus, since the Moon had no hot internal core, there exists 
no problem of trying to figure out how it cooled. 

This spaceship theory would allow the Moon to preserve 
its lopsidedness or aspherical shape as well as the mascons. 
It would also explain why the Moon gives every evidence 
of being cold and rigid in addition to being hollow inter¬ 
nally. Yet with this artificial process it still could have hot 
spots in its interior and in its outer regions, which seem¬ 
ingly are merely intense concentrations of the radioactivity 
used by the aliens to refashion this natural asteroid into a 

This theory thus explains all the seeming mysteries, 
which in fact melt away in the heat of the facts of this 


“artificial” hypothesis. Suddenly everything becomes clear 
in the light of the Soviet Spaceship Moon. 

. .. although the Moon has been visited several times , 
no answer has been obtained [as to its origin]. The 
information we have received offers more puzzles 
than answers . 

—Isaac Asimov 



Ever since the Apollo missions started bringing a new 
world of information to Earth our scientists have used this 
new-found lunar knowledge to kill off many of the most 
widely accepted theories of the origin and make-up of the 
Moon. Scientists began dispatching rival theories left and 
right because they did not completely fit the lunar evidence 
as a whole. At the same time scrambling scientists are 
creating new hypotheses to take the place of old, worn-out 
ones. These new theories are being fitted Procrustean-like 
to the strange discoveries made in exploring this strange 

“A new Moon rose,” Richard Lewis told us at the Fifth 
Lunar Conference in 1974. “It was a planet in its own 
right . . . such a planet had to be captured to become the 
satellite of the Earth.” ( The Voyages of Apollo .) 

This is the latest theory, now being advanced cautiously 
to try to explain some of the enigmas of the old Moon now 
that most of the other theories are dead or dying. And 
old scientific theories, believe me, die a very slow death. 

Interestingly, the theory that is now gaining most ad¬ 
herents is one that was never seriously considered by the 
vast majority of scientists before Apollo. Most experts in 
the field of celestial mechanics rejected this possibility. As 
Walter Sullivan, a leading science writer of our time, says: 

. . . specialists in the movements of celestial bodies 
under the gravitational influence of one another—the 
science of celestial mechanics—find it hard to explain 


how the moon, if it came from afar and was captured 
by the earth’s gravity, achieved so well behaved and 
circular an orbit. 

Even with all their fancy computers, their fine 
spacecraft, guidance and velocity control, specialists in 
space flight find it virtually impossible to launch a 
vehicle from earth so that, without further nudging, it 
goes into orbit around another body such as the moon. 
As in all the Apollo missions including this one, a 
rocket engine must be fired to inject the spacecraft 
into orbit as it flies past the moon. 

Obviously the moon had no such rocket, so how 
did it get into orbit around the earth? (New York 
Times , November 9, 1969.) 

A good question, and one that only the spaceship theory 
of the Moon’s origin resolves with any intelligence. The 
science of celestial mechanics and its laws have not 
changed. The odds of a natural capture of our Moon, con¬ 
sidering its nearly circular orbit, are virtually nil. It is 
virtually impossible. 

Another insoluble problem is that in order for an orb 
the size of the Moon to be captured by Earth it would have 
had to come within the Roche limit—that is, within that 
limit which would cause it to be pulled apart and break up 
under the tremendous effect of the great gravitational pull 
of our much larger, denser Earth. Only a Spaceship Moon 
with a thick metallic hull could have withstood such a 
celestial tug of war and survived intact. Even at that, the 
smaller Moon would have been left with a huge bulge on 
one side, at the very least. Interesting, isn’t it, that our 
Moon has such a bulge—on the far side, which has never 
faced Earth. 


At the Fifth Lunar Conference scientists like John Wood 
and Joseph Smith of the University of Chicago and H. E. 
Miller of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory main¬ 
tained that the Moon did break up as it passed our planet 
on its way to being captured. Then, according to their 


theory, the Moon “reassembled itself in earth orbit.” Amaz¬ 
ing. They do not exactly spell out how this miracle took 
place, except to say by accretion, an old standby of as¬ 

Incidentally, these theorists use this “capture-breakup- 
reassembly” theory to help explain how the Moon lost its 
iron, the element that, as we have seen, is lacking in the 
outer portions of the Moon, except of course in the maria, 
where it is strangely concentrated. They claim that the 
heavier iron pieces of “the disrupted invader were dis¬ 
persed in distant earth orbits.” The remaining pieces, rang¬ 
ing in size from tiny pebbles to huge meteor-size boulders 
many miles across, were drawn to the Moon by its gravity 
and crashed into the ever-enlarging Moon, until it eventu¬ 
ally generated enough heat to turn the lunar surface into 
a sea of molten lava. This rain of rocks would have to have 
happened very, very rapidly, which scientists are at a loss 
to explain. These theorists assume also that the central core 
of the Moon did exist, because they start with that and use 
it to build up to a large Moon. 

This rain of rocks ended some 3.9 billion years ago, leav¬ 
ing the Moon covered with craters and maria. Radioactive 
elements like uranium and thorium gradually built up, melt¬ 
ing once solid interior rock, finally breaking through the 
hard outer crust in great spasms of volcanic activity, filling 
the Moon’s low lying basin with lava, creating the Moon’s 

This is hard to accept, because most scientists point out 
that radioactivity would not melt enough rocks quickly 
enough to send forth oceans of lava larger than entire 
countries of Earth. Furthermore, there is much evidence, 
as we have noted, against the celestial-bombardment- 
formation theory of these strange circular seas of metallic 

Moreover, if the Moon was indeed formed from huge 
chunks of matter in orbit around Earth, where did the 
debris come from? Scientists who espouse this wild theory 
have an ingenious answer to this problem. Geochemist 
John Wood of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory 
in Cambridge, Massachusetts, suggested that thousands of 
chunks of this rock matter were shooting through this 
corner of space, “trapped near the earth and broken up 


by gravitational forces, but many of their heavier com¬ 
ponents, notably iron, were thrown back into space. That 
would explain the paucity of such material in moon rocks.’* 
( Science , 1973, Vol. 103. Also see Time , April 8, 1974.) 

Convenient, convenient. Why would the heavier com¬ 
ponents, notably the iron, be thrown back into space when 
by the laws of gravity they should have been attracted to 
the surface of the Moon even more quickly and surely than 
lighter chunks? 

And how to explain by this theory why Earth, which is 
larger to begin with and a close companion now, did not 
attract these large chunks of lunar debris? Certainly, our 
planet in no way shows signs of going through any kind of 
intense bombardment; the Moon does. 

No, this theory appears to us to be quite contrived. It 
seems more unlikely an hypothesis than the far-out Soviet 
theory of an intelligently created spaceship world steered 
into orbit around Earth. More importantly, this “new 
Moon” still leaves us with many unsolved problems—with 
the mysteries of the mascons, the contradictory cold-hot 
evidence, the mystery of how the Moon could ring like a 
huge gong for over four hours, the mystery of identical 
signal tracking from inside the Moon, and myriads more! 

As far as we can see the best that can be said for it is 
that it shows how lunar scientists are now leaning toward 
the probability that the Moon was born far from our planet 
and came from the outer cosmos. The chemical differences 
alone are leading some scientists in this direction. For if 
Earth and the Moon were created out of the same cosmic 
cloud, why do they differ so much in composition? These 
differences cause many scientists today to discard the the¬ 
ory that the Moon came into being at the same time as 
Earth. The theory that the Moon was ripped out of Earth 
now seems to be completely dead and buried. 

The capture theory is now catching on. And that’s good, 
because it is a step in the right direction—toward the 
Spaceship Moon theory! As Gustaf Arrenhenius and H. 
Alfren of the University of California claim: “There is 
little doubt that the moon is a captured satellite. But its 
capture orbit and tidal evolution are still incomprehensible.” 
(The Moon , An International Journal of Lunar Studies, 

Vol. 5.) 


And will remain so until, as we have pointed out, some¬ 
one can find some way to overcome the problems of celes¬ 
tial mechanics arguing against natural capture. 

There are many other grave problems with the “new” 
Moon of Wood and Smith and their colleagues. Just how, 
for instance, did this Moon by accretion “reassemble” itself 
so that the iron existed in intense amounts only in the 
maria and in an inner band or layer just below the Moon’s 
rock surface? They do not—in fact, cannot—explain this 
conundrum. Obviously, this theory seems to be an unlikely 
explanation even compared to the wild Soviet theory which 
holds it was extracted by alien intelligence to construct the 
inner portions of the spaceship hull and reinforce the outer 
weakened areas of the Moon’s shell. 

After that miracle of nature flinging the iron out of the 
Moon, these scientists of the “new” Moon claim, the major 
pieces recombined near the Earth and minor pieces were 
picked up later. 

Maybe if scientists would take a close scientific look at 
the inner Moon they could see where all the iron and metal 
went. In fact, scientists, as we have shown, know that a 
thick inner layer is rich in iron and refractory alloys. And 
we have shown one outstanding lunar expert trying to ex¬ 
plain the strange 1000-kilometer-long belts of seismic dis¬ 
turbances by saying that they could be “composed of ma¬ 
terial such as embedded blocks of iron . . 

In our opinion, in no way could iron blocks exist nat¬ 
urally inside the Moon. Except, naturally, in the unnatural 
way of the artificial construction of a spaceship! 

Scientists, as you can see, are practically doing lunar 
handstands trying to figure out how, as one science re¬ 
porter put it, “the moon accreted with less iron, more 
aluminum and other refractory elements and more uranium 
than the earth. ‘It ain’t easy/ quips one geochemist.” (Sci¬ 
ence News, April 7, 1973.) 

Anyone can see this. And in fact, to acceptance of this 
entire hard-to-swallow capture-breakup-reassembly we re¬ 
iterate that geochemist’s quip: “It ain’t easy!” 

We would rather stick to the wild, way-out, lunatic-fringe 
spaceship theory that fits all the facts. The capture-breakup- 
accretion-reassembly theory doesn’t. 

As Dr* Donald Wise of the University of Massachusetts, 


a proponent of the fission theory, once said: “It’s always 
possible to choose among competing theories if you’re will¬ 
ing to disregard half the evidence.” (Henry Cooper’s Moon 
Rocks.) This strange theory is guilty of just that, as we 
have seen. 

In fact, scientists have yet to come up with a unitary 
theory that does fit all the facts—aside from this un¬ 
orthodox Soviet theory. We have seen how this amazing 
theory dissolves all the mysteries of the Moon. And, poring 
over the Apollo evidence, we have yet to find a single prob¬ 
lem or contradictory piece of evidence that is not under¬ 
standable in light of this artificial-Moon theory. 


Close-up photos taken by our lunar astronauts show the 
Moon’s surface looks as if it were covered with solder. On 
close scrutiny this metallic-looking “solder glaze” turns out 
to have much more of a glassy effect than a metallic one, 
scientists discovered. It appears that the Moon’s hide was 
scorched somehow by some intense heat. What caused this 
strange glazing phenomenon? 

At first some scientists were convinced that the glassy 
beads were merely condensed out of surface material 
burned by the impact of meteors. 

In fact, one science reporter wrote: “The discovery that 
some parts of the Moon are ‘paved’ with pieces of glass 
supports the view that the Moon has suffered impacts of a 
very energetic nature.” (Frank Cousins, The Solar System.) 

Did all this glass come from massive meteor imp actings? 

“Nope,” says eminent NASA scientist Dr. Eugene Shoe¬ 
maker. “Zero chance. 

“If the surface material vaporized, gas molecules would 
have so much energy that they would escape into space 
rather than condensing and falling back onto the surface 
in such large numbers.” (Science News, August 2, 1969.) 

Where did the glass come from, then? 

Dr. Thomas Gold, leading astronomer of Cornell and 
NASA programs, said that this glass suggested to him that 
it came from the scorching of some intense heat, probably 
produced by solar flare-ups. Calculations, however, show 


that the Sun would have to increase its luminosity by more 
than 100 times its present rate for at least 10 seconds and 
probably up to 100 seconds to accomplish this. Such a 
phenomenon would have made it a kind of mini-nova. 
Most astronomers discount such an intense flare-up by our 
Sun because it appears to be such a stable star and be¬ 
cause there is no evidence on Earth of such a great solar 

Dr. Gold insists that the evidence indicates clearly that 
the flash of intense heat that scorched the Moon’s surface 
must have been recent, because otherwise the erosive effect 
of the constant cosmic rainstorm pelting the planetoid 
would likely have obliterated this lunar evidence. Gold 
estimates that this intense glazing could not be older than 
100,000 years, and more likely closer to 30,000 years. 

Scientists are stumped to explain another Moon mystery. 
But in light of Spaceship Moon we do not need a mini-nova 
of our Sun to explain it. If this Spaceship Moon traveled 
throughout the universe for eons, there would most likely 
have been many occasions when it could have occurred. It 
undoubtedly zipped close to many another sun, so it would 
have had many opportunities to get such a fierce scorching. 

Whether this is what happened we cannot say, but cer¬ 
tainly this problem disappears in view of the travels of our 
Spaceship Moon. 


Yet another piece of evidence whose understanding is 
important to the entire picture of the Spaceship Moon 
puzzle comes to us through our latest Apollo studies. 

Dr. Z. Kopal of the University of Manchester, who is 
looked upon as one of the world’s leading experts on our 
lunar companion, in his definitive work The Moon in the 
Post-Apollo Era zeroes in on another problem of the Moon 
that many other Moon experts overlook. 

This is the conclusion that a study of lunar craters re¬ 
veals the “fact that evidence for impacts in all directions— 
including low-angle or grazing impacts—appears to be dis¬ 
tributed at random all over the surface of our satellite.** 

Kopal’s inquiry into the orbits of the impacting bodies 

that formed the craters and the trajectories that they must 
have followed leads him to the unalterable conclusion that 
these celestial particles or pieces which hit to form our 
Moon’s craters were not in heliocentric orbits . 

As Kopal stresses: “The stony record of the lunar face” 
indicates that “the impinging particles could not have re¬ 
volved in heliocentric orbits.” He arrived at this hard and 
firm conclusion from a study of the craters and the angles 
of impacts, taking into consideration the known laws of 
celestial mechanics. 

Some scientists have considered that cratering on the 
Moon took place while the Moon was in orbit around our 
Earth. This presents a ticklish problem. Kopal now claims 
that convincing evidence indicates that such cratering could 
not have taken place while the Moon was locked in orbit 
around our Earth and Sun. 

“Is there any escape from these conclusions?” asks Kopal. 
“One would be to assume that for the most part the conti¬ 
nental impact craters were inflicted on the Moon before 
its eventual capture by the Earth —when the Moon, travel¬ 
ing alone through space , may have been tumbling [spinning] 
about its centre of mass, so that impacts from all directions 
would have been equally likely.” (Emphasis added.) 

Again, the evidence of the Moon clearly points to the 
fact that our Moon must at one time have been a wander¬ 
ing world, journeying through the universe. But could not 
the Moon have done this naturally, then accidentally been 
captured by Earth’s gravitational field and locked into orbit 
around our planet? We have seen that this unlikely capture 
theory presents many difficulties, not the least of which 
(as we have pointed out time and again) is how the Moon 
could have been captured (and many scientists doubt that 
it could have been) and yet still have taken up its circular, 
well-behaved orbit around our world. Also, the peculiar 
position the Moon has assumed around our world, which 
permits it to produce eclipses, does indicate, as the Soviet 
scientists suggest, that it was powered and steered here! 

But this is not all. There is other convincing evidence 
that this is exactly the case. For Kopal adds in conclusion: 
“We have, therefore, no idea whether or not the Moon 
could have been spin-stabilized in space before its hypo¬ 
thetical capture. However, even if this was not the case, 


it is most unlikely that any of its pre-existing surface 
sculpture would have survived so brutal an experience as 
capture of the Moon by the Earth would inevitably have 
been. The need to slow down a passer-by to make capture 
possible would have required a dissipation of so much 
energy of the Moon through inelastic tides as could be 
raised only at a very close approach; and such tides would 
no doubt have obliterated most, if not all, of the pre¬ 
existing surface-markings.” 


But they did not! Clearly this is another indication that 
this was not an ordinary “capture.” With this Spaceship- 
Moon, of course, it was really no capture at all. It was, in 
fact, an intelligently directed, powered, and steered maneu¬ 
ver that put the Moon in orbit around our Earth—so that 
in a sense the Moon captured Earth and not the other way 
around. They adopted us; not we them. 

Another difficult problem solved in light of the Space¬ 
ship Moon theory! 

This is the beauty of the Soviet spaceship theory. It is 
comprehensive! It answers all the problems and puzzles; 
solves all the mysteries and enigmas, dissolves all the lunar 
contradictions and difficulties. It is the perfect solution, for 
it fits all the evidence! And that evidence, as we have seen, 
turns out to be proof that our Moon is a hollowed-out 
spacecraft, artificially transformed from a ball of rock into 
a metallic inside-out world. 


1. Why the Moon is a freak world—too big and too far 
out to be the natural satellite of Earth. 

2. Why the Moon could have a synchronized, almost 
perfectly circular orbit. 

3. Why the craters of the Moon are so numerous and so 

strangely shallow. ! 

4. Why the Moon could have a great bulge on its far side, 
which never faces Earth. 

5. Why the Moon has such great internal strength. 

6. Why the Moon, so bereft of iron in general, has a rich 
band of iron and other metal in an inside layer. 


7. Why some Moon rocks are older than Earth and even 
our solar system! 

8. Why lunar rocks lying near each other can have such 
varying ages. 

9. Why lunar soil can be a billion years older in general 
than rocks lying about it. 

10. Why the Moon’s composition is so different from 

11. Why the Moon seems to have been made “inside out” 

12. Why the maria and mascons can exist. 

13. Why the maria have so much metal content of a highly 
refractory nature. 

14. Why the Moon can have pure metal particles, includ¬ 
ing iron that does not rust! 

15. Why the Moon has heavier material that flowed to the 
top, apparently against the laws of nature. 

16. Why the Moon has evidence supporting both hot- 
Mooners and cold-Mooners, indicating the Moon must 
have been hot and at the same time proving it never 
could have been. 

17. Why the Moon has evidence of tremendous heating 
and melting and yet is relatively cool today. 

18. Why the Moon vibrates like a huge gong, conveying 
tremors great distances and even completely around 
the Moon. 

19. Why the Moon appears to be a huge rubble pile. 

20. Why the Moon has the “shakes” periodically, with 
swarms of seismic activity. 

21. Why the Moon seems to have such low density and 
peculiar lightness, in that it gives every evidence of 
being partly or wholely hollow. 

22. Why seismic waves travel so fast through an extremely 
hard inner layer, indicating a metal shell under its 
rock crust. 

23. Why the Moon produces identical seismic waves of 
internal disturbances. 

24. Why the Moon can be so precisely in the position it is 
so that viewed from Earth it is equal in size to the 
Sun’s disk, each canceling the other out during eclipses, 
thus making possible such a unique phenomenon—the 
only planet we know of that has this phenomenon. 


In addition to all this , the spaceship theory also makes 

understandable such lunar enigmas as; 

1. How the Mom could have been captured by Earth or 
should we say^ow the Moon captured the Earth, yet 
ended up with its^ unexplainable circular orbit, 

2. How the Moon can be where it is, not in the usual 
satellite orbit around our orb’s equator, but instead 
following strangely an orbit closer to the Earth’s own 
orbit around our Sun. 

3. How the Moon can sustain its great lopsidedness. 

4. How the Moon could have melted on its surface such 
elements as titanium and zirconium that have tremen¬ 
dously high melting points. 

5. How the Moon can have so much radioactivity in its 
upper layers, 

6. How the Moon can have internal vibrations and trem¬ 
ors that last for hours. 

7. How the Moon can have internal disturbances at un¬ 
heard of depths. 

8. How the Moon can affect -the magnetic needle of a 
compass, even if ever so slightly. 

9. How the Moon can have indications of being extremely 
rigid at great depths and yet seemingly have other 
properties and evidence to indicate it is warm. 

10. How the Moon’s outer crustal surface could have been 
melted so rapidly. 

11. How can there be so much metal in the Moon’s maria, 
even pure processed metal! 

12. How and by what forces the Moon could have had 
such significant redistribution of its crustal materials. 

13. How the Moon could have come to have a strong 
remanence without a molten core. 

14. How the Moon can be a dry-as-dust world and yet have 
occasional huge clouds of water vapor. 

15. How the Moon can be volcanically dead and yet have 
had hundreds of strange glows and lights and moving 
objects on its surface in the past several centuries. 

16. How the Moon can be a hollow shell yet not collapse 
(due to its great metallic shell). 


17. How the Moon can spawn so many seeming natural 
contradictions of data and findings, v 



UFOs are astronautical craft, or entities . If they have 
a fixed base of any kind, that base is likely the Moon . 

—M orris Jessup 



We have seen how remarkably the American and Soviet 
evidence obtained from Moon expeditions all seems to back 
the startling spaceship theory. 

Admittedly, there are a lot of loose ends and unanswered 
questions. One staggering one: Is the Moon an island of life 
or a graveyard of ages past? Is it a celestial Flying Dutch¬ 
man floating through space that once harbored alien beings 
or is it still teeming with alien life? Are there intelligent 
beings there today? 

We have seen in our opening chapters that hundreds of 
weird lights and moving objects seen on the Moon indicate 
that it may indeed yet be an island of life, either a home 
of aliens or a base for visiting beings. Hundreds of strange 
sightings in the past several centuries since the invention 
of the telescope convince us that such may be the case. And 
the strange UFO encounters our lunar astronauts had are 
the clincher, the final proof. 

Admittedly, the Soviet scientists who devised the space¬ 
ship theory speculate that Spaceship Moon is an abandoned 
world. But, as we have seen, it may not be a completely 
dead celestial body after all. Maybe it is not alive vol¬ 
canically, but there is definite evidence that it is alive 
biologically—that is, there are live alien beings up there 
(living, of course, on the inside). 

Strangely enough, when the Apollo Moon program be¬ 
gan, ostensibly the orthodox scientists of Earth were only 
looking for simple forms of life, like microbes. 


Did lunar scientists expect to find life on the surface of 
this seemingly dead world? When Dr. Eugene Shoemaker, 
one of NASA’s leading scientists, was asked this question 
he laughed ^ut loud. 

“Well, of cb^sjse, there are the lunar elephants!” he re¬ 
sponded. “We’ll see those!” 

Shoemaker was referring to a pompous seventeenth- 
century English researcher, Sir Paul Neal, who announced 
after peering through a telescope that he had discovered an 
elephant on the Moon! Needless to say, this announcement 
caused quite a stir of excitement until, as the story goes, 

people found that all he had seen was a mouse that had 


apparently crept into his telescope. 


One problem foremost in the minds of many Earth scien¬ 
tists was the task of landing astronauts on the Moon with¬ 
out contaminating the surface with earth-bred organisms 
and germs. And vice versa, without contaminating Earth 
upon the astronauts’ return. This theoretically could be 
fraught with great danger. So strict precautions were taken. 
Our first astronauts were isolated and examined for many 
days upon their return to make sure they had no con¬ 
taminating microbes on them. 

Scientists were intensely interested in finding out whether 
our Moon had any evidence of life on its seemingly sterile 
surface. The dust brought back to Earth from the Moon 
seemed to be as dead and bereft of life as the Moon itself 
appears to the ordinary observer. 

No evidence of life was found in any of the Moon rocks 
or soil brought back to Earth, although one physicist exam¬ 
ining a sample of lunar dust was startled when he looked 
through a microscope to see what appeared to be a Moon 
organism with legs and feelers! It turned out to be only a 
flea that had come from a dog which had strayed into 
the lab. 

The precious Moon dust was examined microscopically 
very carefully and subjected to over 300 different tests to 
see if anything would live in it. Nothing did. One scientist 
thought he had found what appeared to be columns of 


microbes. However, the pretty turquoise mold turned out 
to be a wholly chemical phenomenon. 

Although no Moon organism was found growing in 300 
different environments, strangely enough, scientists found 
that Moon dust itself seems to help plants to flourish and 
-grow lustily. 

Scientists, many of whom were from the U.S. Depart¬ 
ment of Agriculture, were unable to account fully for this 
phenomenon. Nevertheless, some were convinced after sev¬ 
eral experiments that it had to do with the chemistry of 
the lunar dust itself, which appeared to be much like vol¬ 
canic ash of Earth in the way it stimulated growth. But in 
essence, chemists and geochemists alike were mystified by 
this puzzling phenomenon. 

In any event, the important discovery does show that 
plants can be grown on Moon dust, which means that a 
Moon colony, if ever established, would have no difficulty 
in furnishing sufficient food from luxurious lunar gardens. 
For it seems to be an ideal medium to grow lush gardens in. 


The Moon has been labeled by most scientists a dead 
world, volcanically and biologically. Seemingly, no life 
exists on its surface. And no direct evidence of life has 
turned up in its dust and dirt. 

And this seems to be just what most scientists expected. 
For this waterless, airless blasted rock in our skies is full 
of deadly radiation and racked by tremendous changes from 
day to night, which of course does not make it a likely 
haven for any kind of life. On the outside it appears to be 
one huge sterilizer in the sky. But, clearly, who knows what 
exists underneath the protective layers of rock and crust? 
Life might now be thriving in the interior of this mystery 

It is interesting to note that in mid-1971 a team of bio¬ 
chemists announced that they had found traces of organic 
chemicals in a sample of soil returned from the Moon. 
“They found complex carbon-based compounds—not liv¬ 
ing matter, or even material that was alive. But the long 
chain, carbon-based molecules that you and I are corn- 


posed of. If organic compounds have been found on the 
Moon, can there be life there too?” asks science writer Ben 
Bova. ( The New Astronomies , St Martin’s Press, 1972.) 

Similarly, the scholarly periodical Scientific American , in 
an article entitled “The Carbon Chemistry of the Moon” 
(October 1972) claims that “exhaustive analysis of the 
Apollo samples reveals various simple organic compounds. 
These substances did not originate with life, but they add 
to t 'le store of information on how life originated.” 

t nd we add with Scientific American that they make it 
“increasingly likely that we are not alone in the universe.” 

However, this highly respected journal of scientific 
thought appears to be ignoring the overwhelming weight 
of evidence that not only is our Moon a spaceship but it is 
an occupied spacecraft! For the facts show the Moon is 
teeming with intelligent life! 


Not only have strange lights, weird moving glows, and 
unidentified Flying Objects been spotted on the Moon 
throughout the telescopic age of man—the period man has 
been observing our satellite through a telescope—but other 
strange phenomena taking place constantly on her surface 
indicate that life is indigenous to the Moon. That it has 
been there a long time and appears to be using the Moon 
as a base for operations. 

Perhaps the most unexplainable reports of all were the 
astronomic sightings of strange structures and weird 
changes taking place on the surface of this supposedly dead 
and changeless world. 

Astronomers have concluded that the Moon is an airless, 
windless, and for the most part erosionless world. At least, 
this is what scientists have been telling mankind for a long 
time. It is a changeless orb. Yet in the past several cen¬ 
turies many peculiar changes and happenings have been de¬ 
tected by competent observers, taking place on the Moon’s 
surface right under their eyes, for which they have no satis¬ 
factory explanation. 

We have seen how expert astronomers like the late Mor¬ 
ris Jessup, formerly a leading astronomer of the University 


of Michigan, concluded that these lights and bright mov¬ 
ing “spots” astronomic observers all over the world have 
been reporting over the past several centuries are nothing 
else than UFOs—spaceships of alien beings on the Moon! 

And indeed many of these strange reported sightings do 
seem to be just that. For instance, on September 7, 1800, 
several people in France observed strange objects moving 
in straight lines above the surface of the Moon during a 
lunar eclipse. They appeared to be close to the Moon’s 
surface. Then, as these observers watched, the objects all 
turned in the same straight line, separated by uniform spac¬ 
ing, as precise as though they were in military formation. 

In his book The Case for the UFO Jessup concludes also 
that in addition to lunar lights there are exterior dome-like 
constructions on the Moon that indicate their presence 

Evidence that they have been building strange domelike 
structures on the Moon surface is impressive. Several hun¬ 
dred have been reported. Some claim that they now number 
over 700. Points out astronomer Morris Jessup: "Two hun¬ 
dred years ago there were none.” (The Expanding Case for 
the UFO.) 

Some of these strangest of all lunar structures are rather 
large—nearly 700 feet in diameter. The great English as¬ 
tronomer Dr. H. P. Wilkins points to one discovered as late 
as 1953. On September 26 of that year, F. H. Thornton 
sighted “a sort of island of light amid the blackness, clearly 
proving that it was raised, in fact a dome.” {Our Moon) 

Wilkins observes: “It is curious that this is the first time 
that such a thing has been seen. Is it possible that it has 
only become a dome recently.” {Our Moon.) 

This great English astronomer points out that earlier ob¬ 
servers, "many of them possessed of good telescopes,” 
strangely enough did not record them or "recorded few of 
the domes.” Wilkins Often refers to this nickname “bowler 
domes” for to him “they look for all the world like 
[English] bowler hats.” {Our Moon.) 

Jessup cites many examples of such domelike structures 
suddenly appearing on the Moon. Here are a few of the 
more startling ones: 

September 1889—Professor Thury of Geneva ob- 


served the sudden appearance in the crater Plinius of a 
“circular, chalk-like spot in the center.” Jessup con¬ 
cludes: “Clearly this was a UFO. What else could 
something of a temporary nature with a little spot in 
the center be?” he asks. 

To Jessup such bright, circular white spots, which 
are described as domes, are UFOs. 

The British astronomer Birt in 1879 noted “bright 
spots” appearing in crater Hyginus. Astronomer N. E. 
Green also observed dramatic changes in the crater 
Hyginus. In Astronomical Register (Vol. XVII, p. 
144) he noted that the crater changed its brightness 
from night to night and that “evidently no crater or 
hollow” seemed to exist there any longer “but seems 
rather a spot of color instead of a crater, but this can¬ 
not be the case because it is lost when the sun rises.” 

Other astronomers have noted rapid changes here 
“showing markings which changed their appearances 
completely in twenty minutes.” This is too rapid a 
change to ascribe to anything else but intelligent con¬ 
trol, concludes the astronomer Jessup. 

Astronomer Eiger described “a bright round spot” 
suddenly appearing in the crater Fracastorius. In a 
different light it resembled a low, circular hill or 
“round-topped tableland.” It was domelike—one of 
the many domes which suddenly appeared on the 
Moon. But this one suddenly took on a remarkable 
appearance, different from some of the others. Notes 
Jessup: “It seemed to be surrounded by a peculiar 
glow quite different from the lights of other spots on 
the floor of Fracastorius, and in the center of the glow 
I could just distinguish a delicate crater of the most 
minute type, which would certainly not have been 
visible had not the definition been exceptionally good.” 

Similarly, strange “bright round spots” have appeared all 
over the Moon. Many bright round spots appeared in areas 
of strange activity like Plato or the Sea of Crisis. Com¬ 
menting on the strange “very bright round spots” suddenly 
appearing in the largest of the craterlets on the floor of 


Plato, where so many bright lights have been reported, 
the English astronomer Wilkins notes: “Why an object 
which usually requires some looking for should have sud¬ 
denly become a large bright spot is a mystery. It looked 
as though a little craterlet was filled with something which 
strongly reflected sunlight. Whatever it was, it completely 
altered the usual appearance, turning a well-defined crater- 
let into a bright spot” 

Jessup says of this remarkable change in the Plato 
Crater: “Wilkins seems to have failed to note the parallel¬ 
ism here to Linne and other ‘bowler hat’ phenomena which 
he himself has mentioned.” 

Wilkins, of course, unlike Jessup, does not state that these 
are definitely evidence of alien intelligence on the Moon. 
In the book Our Moon he freely admits his puzzlement: 
“We cannot subscribe to this idea because without air to 
breathe it is exceedingly difficult to contemplate the ex¬ 
istence of selenites let alone to speculate as to their possible 
activities, industrial or otherwise. It is equally difficult to ex¬ 
plain these things on natural grounds.” 

Jessup, who obviously has a high regard for this great En¬ 
glish astronomer’s judgment and refers to his books as “one 
of the most modern of lunar treatises and most generous 
to lunar activity,” does not quite agree with Wilkins, but 
notes that these strange domelike structures began to appear 
over a hundred years ago although in sparse numbers. 

Wilkins does point out that the “foremost seleneog- 
rapher” of the nineteenth century, Nasmyth, claims that 
none existed apart from one sighted north of Birt Crater 
near the Straight Wall. Wilkins, however, notes that “today 
they are known [there] in considerable quantities.” He 
claims he and Patrick Moore alone have discovered nearly 
a hundred. Wilkins claims that domes increased in number 
every year during the fifties. Jessup writing in the fifties, 
claimed: “Their number doubles just about every twenty 
years ” (The Expanding Case for the UFO.) 

Jessup agrees with Wilkins that these domes are indeed 
mysterious. He agrees essentially with the great British 
astronomer that “in spite of his own extensive study and 
review of all other reports, he cannot explain the domes.” 

Jessup does point out, however, that there were only 
“two in 1865.” By his own time, in the 1950s, there were 


over 200. Some estimate today there are nearly 1000! 

One of the earliest and most impressive sudden appear¬ 
ances of a dome on the Moon took place in the well-known 
crater Linne, which had been mapped by a great number 
of astronomers and then suddenly disappeared. In the mid- 
1860s dramatic changes began to take place in Linne. In 
the 1840s Johann Schroeter had mapped a 6-mile crater 
named Linne. It had a depth of about 1200 feet. 

This German astronomer made hundreds of the maps of 
the Moon over many years, yet in the instance of Linne his 
observations noted that this crater had, strangely, disap¬ 
peared. Then, in November 1866, changes began to occur 
in Linne with puzzling rapidity. On November 13, 1866, 
the astronomer Webb described “an ill-defined whiteness** 
he saw there. Talmadge claimed he saw “a circular dark 
cloud.” The astronomer Denning claimed that on January 
8 he saw a small hill rise out of Linne, appearing to be a 
“very brilliant point of Light.” Later Denning concluded 
that a “hill” existed here. He even described “a white cloud 
which had replaced Linne.** 

What do astronomers make of all this? Jessup claims if 
you combine all the descriptions you come up with artificial 
structures of some kind. He believes they could be UFOs. 

In The Expanding Case for the UFO Jessup gives 
page after page of the map changes and data on how Linne 
changed in size and structure, even on the dome itself that 
“covered” Linne. 

He says: “So the ‘thing* covering Linne was fluctuating 
in size as well as brightness.” He asks: “If this was a real 
cloud [as some described it] what prevented it from dis¬ 
sipating into the vacuous atmosphere of the moon?” 
He notes that it was too tenuous to cast a shadow, yet 
opaque enough “to obscure the surface below it.” How 
to account for all this? 

Jessup quotes the astronomer Wilkins: “Today Linne is 
the reverse of a crater, being in fact a hill or dome with 
a minute pit on its summit.’** 

Jessup, who believes Linne is definitely an artificial alien 


*As noted before, NASA claims that photos of this area show no 
dome-like structure but only a tiny, pitted area. 


construction and maybe even a UFO, asks: “Was Linne the 
first 'colony'?” That is, the first of returning “Moonmen” 
in modern times. He insists that intelligences have been on 
the Moon from time to time at least since the early be¬ 
ginnings of human civilization. 

Jessup makes a striking observation about this strange 
domelike structure which he claims is true for all such con¬ 
structions. “There must be some significance in these un- 
focusable spots and nebulosities on the Moon. What pre¬ 
vents a telescope from receiving a sharp image when the 
surroundings are perfectly clear?’* 

Concludes the orthodox scientist who is able to shed his 
orthodox views: “This is the first report of this series of 
UFO operations—the disappearing craters, superimposed 
nebulosities (clouds, mists) and the rest. . . .” 

Strange clouds of all kinds, shapes, and sizes appearing 
and moving around the surface of the Moon, some with 
lightinglike speed, i« been recorded, as the NASA report 
examined in Chapter 2 noted. What does Jessup make of 

This bold astronomer tackles the problem head on: “How 
solve the enigma of small clouds associated with minute 
craters on the surface of an orb which has practically no 
atmosphere? Something must be generating and dispersing 
these clouds that appear and disappear in a manner not con¬ 
sistent with a highly ratified atmosphere.” 

With the present knowledge we have garnered from our 
recent studies of the Moon, we now know for sure that 
clouds are absolutely impossible on this airless world. 

Yet “clouds” have been seen. What are they? 

Take a typical sighting reported in great detail by the 
English astronomer Birt. He notes that he saw “a white- 
cloud-like spot” appear suddenly near Picard. (Astronom¬ 
ical Register, 1864, Vol. II, p. 295.) 

Birt comments on this “cloud”: “In the course of my 
observations, as I observed the locality under oblique 
illumination, the white cloud spot became invisible or did 
not exist; which, I can not say. But its want of definiteness 
and its similarity in appearance to a cloud led me to hesitate 
before expressing an opinion as to what it really appeared 
to be. Further observation brought to light a small pit-like 
depression in its neighborhood with which the larger cloud- 


like marking appeared to be connected. The pit-like depres¬ 
sion is of a beautiful whiteness and shows up when the 
cloud is not visible.” 

Jessup identifies these “clouds” with the strange domes 
of the Moon. He says: “This looks very much like the lair 
of some sort of UFO.” Both the “clouds” and the “domes,” 
he is convinced, are some kind of UFO. 

For hadn’t a number of astronomers described the 
strange dome that appeared at Linne as a “cloud”? In 1866 
the astronomer Schmidt announced that the well-known 
Linne Crater, which had been mapped by a great number 
of astronomers before it suddenly disappeared, had turned 
“into a whitish cloud.” Significantly he added, it “appears to 
be moving around.” 

This surely sounds like a UFO. And Jessup concludes 
that it is exactly that! 

Unlike other astronomers, however, Wilkins does not 
pass them off as purely natural phenomena or deny that 
they even exist. 

In this regard the great English astronomer remarks 
somewhat acidly: 

Of course, the cynics will declare that these pe¬ 
culiarities have no real existence, that it is all a case 
of observers being mistaken. However, it is a remark¬ 
able thing that the people who refuse to believe these 
things are the very people who have the least experi¬ 
ence in observing the Moon. Some of them have never 
seen the Moon through a telescope. Perhaps this is 
wise, for if they did they might be converted. 

It is like the contemporary of Galileo who declared, 
having proved to satisfaction that satellites or moons 
of the Planet Jupiter did not exist, and then would 
not look through Galileo’s telescope in case he should 
see them. He died shortly afterwards, which prompted 
Galileo to remark that it was to be hoped that he saw 
them while on his way to heaven! (Our Moon.) 

Wilkins does not make the most direct conclusion, 
which Jessup does, about all these domes, clouds, and 
other strange “events” taking place on the Moon. For 
Jessup concludes that they are evidence of alien beings on 


the satellite of Earth. Interestingly, Wilkins does not reject 
this possibility. In fact, he and colleague and coauthor, 
Patrick Moore in their book The Moon confess: “It is not 
impossible that on the Moon there may exist, or have once 
existed, some form of life peculiar to the Moon and totally 
unlike anything known on Earth.” 

But Jessup is bolder. Studying the evidence of lights, 
clouds, and domes on the Moon, he hesitates not a single 
moment before proclaiming them to be the evidence of 
alien beings. He notes the close association of the inexplic¬ 
able disappearing craters with bright spots, domes, lights, 
and “clouds.” “Note the frequency which spots, lights 
and clouds appear in groups of one to eight or nine—on 
the Moon.” {The Expanding Case for the UFO.) 

To Jessup, the crack astronomer, there can be no other 
conclusion: They are UFOs and evidence of alien intelli¬ 
gence on and probably coming from inside this strange 
world of the Moon. 


Some astronomers may argue that the appearance of a 
cloud of dust is merely a meteor hitting and “kicking up” 
Moon particles on the surface. Until recently others in¬ 
sisted that the sudden appearance of a dome or mist was 
due to volcanic activity, a theory eliminated by scientific 
evidence that proves our Moon has been a dead world for 
eons—-volcanically dead, that is. 

Then how to explain the disappearance of a structure 
on the Moon? And these have occurred. On the edge of the 
Sea of Cold, not far from the strange crater which has 
been the center of so much activity on the Moon, Plato, 
is a large, almost perfect square, described by astronomer 
Madler in detail. Madler says that within this rampartslike 
square structure of four walls “was an almost perfect cross 
formed by white ridges.” 

Yet today it is gone. Wilkins, using the greatest telescope 
in Europe, reports confidently that one side of the square 
no longer exists and that the cross has disappeared! The 
area has been searched and searched with telescopes ten 
times the diameter of the one used by Madler. Says Jessup: 


“Something, then moved away a huge wall and a great 
cross. What could that be—alien intelligence?” ( The Ex¬ 
panding Case for the UFO,) 

Jessup then quotes the British astronomer Wilkins, whose 
puzzlement we have already noted, as candidly confessing 
that we cannot completely rule out the possibility that these 
changes on the Moon’s surface, this seeming “intelligent 
activity” indicated by “events” and “happenings” on the 
Moon’s surface, could possibly indicate the existence of 
intelligent beings on the Moon. Although Wilkins does not 
take the final step and conclude that intelligent beings exist 
on the Moon, he does admit that these “events” cannot be 
explained away “on natural grounds.” 

Jessup, who has sincere admiration for Wilkins, ob¬ 
serves: “This is an active mind striving against the fetters 
of dogmatized science. This is as far as we may ask an 
astronomer to go in advocating intelligence on the Moon, 
or anywhere else in space. More would cut him off from 
his profession. Let this man of authority state the obser¬ 
vational facts. I, already an outcast, will cheerfully take 
the rap by stating bluntly what the facts imply— UFO 
activity!” (The Expanding Case for the UFO . Emphasis 

Most of these sightings took place several decades ago; 
some centuries ago. Is there any evidence that there are 
intelligent beings on the Moon today? 

Before Jessup died in the late fifties he also authored a 
number of UFO annuals. In his UFO Annual for 1955 he 
reports that two amateur astronomers saw a strange happen¬ 
ing on the Moon on the night of July 5, 1955. One ob¬ 
server saw a strange light “hover for three minutes and 
then move off the Moon.” 

Jessup concludes: “That’s controlled motion and control 
means intelligence!” 

One of these astronomers reported that the spot of light 
appeared at the exact center of the Moon’s disk; the other 
said it had moved to the Moon’s edge. That established 
two base lines, one on Earth, one on the Moon, notes 
Jessup. With these two lines and the known distance from 
the Earth to the Moon it was possible to locate that UFO’s 
position in space. It was 95,000 miles out. 


This is perhaps the most amazing sighting and evidence 
Jessup comes up with to indicate UFOs in the vicinity of 
the Moon. 

In our book Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon f we noted 
the many sightings of our Apollo astronauts. But if we are 
to belieive an account related by a former Russian space 
scientist who defected from the Soviet Union to France 
in 1969, the Soviets had actually landed men on the Moon. 
The story is interesting because the claim is made that while 
there Soviet astronauts had a strange encounter with “alien 

In an interview carried in Beyond Magazine (February 
1969) Professor Lev Mohilyn, who claims he participated 
in the Soviet space program before his defection relates the 
account of that unknown Soviet mission. On June 5, 1968, 
according to his story, a manned Russian rocket was 
launched from a base in the Ural Mountains. Its destination: 
the Moon. It carried two cosmonauts (Ilya and Evgeny), 
who successfully made it to the Moon in three days. After 
accomplishing a soft landing they left their craft to carry 
out some explorations on the lunar surface. However, while 
out there, according to Professor Mohilyn, a “mechanical 
monster” attacked Evgeny and killed him. Ilya rushed back 
to the spaceship and upon orders blasted off the Moon’s 
surface. She (Ilya was a lady cosmonaut) eventually safely 
completed the return trip to Earth. 

Is there anything to back up Mohilyn’s incredible story? 
No one knows. It seems to be utterly preposterous on the 
surface, and while it is true that the Soviets never (at least 
to Western world’s knowledge) ever claimed to have 
achieved a manned landing on the Moon, unquestionably 
they had the power and capability to attempt such a land¬ 
ing. But it is doubtful that they could have accomplished 
a successful landing at that early a time. Their journey 
purportedly (if we are to believe Professor Mohilyn’s ac¬ 
count) took place a full year before Neil Armstrong and 
Buzz Aldrin set foot on the Moon. 



Another unauthenticated account claims that radio sig¬ 
nals have been received from inside the Moon. 

Back in the late thirties, radio engineer Grote Reber 
allegedly was trying out a radical new type of radio tele¬ 
scope experimenting for the Bell Telephone Company in 
New Jersey. The purpose of the experiment he claimed 
was to collect and “focus radio waves from space.” Riley 
Crabb of the Borderland Sciences Research Foundation 
who relates this incredible account, notes that although 
“orthodox astronomy says the moon is a dead place,” 
according to Bell Telephone engineer, Karl Jansky “some¬ 
thing is happening there; for Reber turned his radio tele¬ 
scope on the Moon and did receive signals from the Moon. 
This was years ago, before such information was classified 
top secret. Jansky said the radio signals originated from 
inside the Moon, not on the surface. This would indicate 
that the interior of the moon is inhabited,” concludes 
Crabb. ( Meeting on the Moon , Borderland Sciences 
Research Foundation, 1964.) 

Though this story cannot be verified, it is interesting to 
note that other reports of radio signals emanating from 
the Moon have been verified. In our book Our Mysterious 
Spaceship Moon we noted that in 1927, 1928, and 1934 
“mystifying radio signals were detected in the vicinity of 
our companion world, the Moon, by various radio re¬ 

In 1935 two scientists named Van Der Pol and Stormer 
detected radio signals on and around our Moon. Even radio 
and electrical geniuses Marconi and Tesla turned in some 
strange reports. 

Perhaps the most recent such radio signals to be reported 
to our knowledge occurred in 1956 and were picked up by 
Ohio University and other observatories around the world. 
At the time Ohio University researchers claimed to have 
received a “codelike chatter from the Moon.” (Saga, April 


Whether the radio evidence is valid or not, there appears 
to be no doubt that the cumulative tons of evidence of 
thousands of strange lights and moving objects on the Moon 


and the sightings of our Apollo astronauts, as well as 
various other strange things happening on the Moon, do 
indicate that without a doubt not only is our Moon a 
spaceship but it still has intelligent beings aboard! 


There have been some strange things happening to our 
space equipment on the Moon which might indicate that 
aliens are still there. 

In April 1976 the New York Times News service carried 
an intriguing article about a startling development that 
took place on the Moon. “Mysterious Force Pesters Apollo 
Station” ( Detroit Free Press , April 22, 1976.) 

The seismometer station which had been set upon the 
Moon by Apollo 14 astronauts (one of five deployed there) 
had been operating without a hitch since February 1971. 
Then suddenly it went dead in March 1975. Naturally 
NASA officials were not surprised when it stopped work¬ 
ing. When the radio receiver failed in March 1975 and 
the transmitter quit working on January 18, 1976, NASA 
scientists were anything but disturbed. The Apollo Lunar 
Scientific Experiments Package (ALSEPS) scientists had 
thought it would last only about a year. Strangely, the 
atomic power supplying the ALSEPS lasted much longer 
than scientists anticipated. 

The mystery, however, began when about a month later 
(February 19, 1976) the Apollo 14 ALSEPS equipment 
suddenly began working again. Furthermore, the mystery 
deepened for not only did the radio transmitter and receiver 
begin operating perfectly once more, but one of the 
ALSEPS experiments that had never operated in the in¬ 
tense heat of lunar daytime now began “operating flaw¬ 
lessly night and day.” 

Then, according to the Times news service, one month 
later “the mysterious force shut the whole station down 
again.” Charles Redwood, NASA spokesman out of Hous¬ 
ton, candidly admitted: “It’s a bit of a mystery. We have 


a number of people trying to figure what’s happening up 
there but we haven’t got an answer yet.” 

Are we to conclude from this “mystery force’* pestering 
one of our Apollo stations that someone is on the Moon? 
There is undoubtedly another explanation to this Moon 
mystery. But other far more substantial and impressive 
evidence exists to indicate that our spaceship Moon is pres¬ 
ently occupied. 


A similar incident happened to the Apollo 16 spacecraft 
which a few sensationaliStic writers seized as evidence that 
intelligent “Moon beings” were trying to play havoc with 
our space probes. 

Our Apollo 16 lunar spacecraft was suddenly thrown 
off course. Richard Lewis a reliable science reporter, says: 
“No one knew what happened to throw the inertial guid¬ 
ance system into a lock. It was probably one of those 
mysterious, electrical transients called a ‘glitch* that no one 
really understands but that create temporary malfunction 
in electronic equipment and then disappear without a 
trace.” ( The Voyages of Apollo,) 

Modern People Press Special UFO Report (Spring 1976) 
includes another strange incident in an article intriguingly 
entitled “Unexplained Lunar Mysteries Point to Intelligent 
‘Moon Men.* ” They note that a “mysterious electrical 
impulse” stopped our unmanned Ranger III spacecraft 
from taking television pictures after it landed on the Moon. 
There appeared to be no malfunction, but something 
countermanded an order radioed by the NASA Goldstone 
Tracking Station. Apparently no explanation was forth¬ 
coming for what happened and no one could “even guess 
from whence the impulse emanated.” 

Do such accounts indicate “intelligent Moon men”? 
Hardly. There probably are rational explanations for 
them which explain them on natural grounds. However, as 
we have seen time and again, there is overwhelming evi¬ 
dence to support the conclusion that a strange alien pres¬ 
ence does exist on the Moon, as shown by the many strange, 


unexplainable encounters the Apollo astronauts experienced 
there. Almost every Apollo astronaut saw strange lights, 
unidentified flying objects, or heard strange radio noises or 
sounds. This plus the astronomic evidence of definite ac¬ 
tivity on the Moon in the past several decades as well as 
centuries, continuing to the present time, would lead any 
open-minded investigator to the conclusion that someone 
is up there on the Moon. Lights and glows, strange struc¬ 
tures, flying objects that move and hover above the surface 
of the Moon seen both by astronauts and astronomers, 
cannot all be explained away as optical illusions or hallu¬ 
cinations. No, someone is occupying the Moon. And they 
may have a great deal to do with you and me—and our 
home, Earth. 

. . . / think people are hungering for mystery , and 
the moon has been a place of mystery for man as 
long as the human race has existed . 

—Astronaut James Irwin 



Our view of the Moon may be considered revolutionary 
but we must remember that our own view of our own 
planet Earth today would have been considered science 
fiction a mere two centuries ago. 

Less than two hundred years ago the scientific world 
thought that our planet was but a few thousand years old. 
Then scientists like Charles Lyell (1797-1875), the father 
of modem geology, began to see that, contrary to common 
thought of the time, changes on Earth took place slowly 
over eons, rather than quickly; that indeed Earth was hun¬ 
dreds of millions if not billions of years old. 

This doctrine of change in the “chemistry of time” 
(called uniformitarianism), says science writer Richard 
Lewis in his intriguing book The Voyages of Apollo , “was 
the key to understanding the Solar System. Without this 
idea it would have been a waste of time and money from 
a scientific point of view to have explored the Moon, or 


any other planet. One simply could not have understood 
what one was looking at** (Emphasis added.) 

This may be still true today in regard to the Moon. 
Scientists locked in orthodox methods cannot shake old 
ways of thinking. 

Concludes Lewis: “It may be the mysteries of the Moon 
still eluding science require for their solution a new con¬ 
ceptual departure as radical as uniformitarianism was in 
the eighteenth century.** (Emphasis added.) 

Urey told his fellow scientists just before our manned 
explorations of the Moon began: “Let your imaginations 

go . . 

This does not mean to give free rein to the imagination 
without sticking to the facts and the evidence, but merely 
to allow for consideration other imaginative ideas or the¬ 
ories about the origin and nature of this mysterious Moon 
of ours. 

Dr. S. Agrell of the University of Cambridge in England 
said the same thing: “It seems to me that lunar geology is 
something which is quite distinct.” Agrell sounded the 
warning to his fellow scientists: -“Clinging to earthly geol¬ 
ogy is like wearing a special kind of blinders, which do 
not allow the scientist to be imaginative enough.” ( Science 
News, January 10, 1970.) 

Yet scientists today for the most part remain strait- 
jacketed in the old orthodoxy—locked in old ways of 
looking at the Moon. 

In 1975 when this author published our ground-breaking 
investigation of the bizarre Soviet artificial-Moon theory, 
we hoped ardently it would send “shock waves throughout 
the scientific world,” as the publisher predicted. Copies of 
the book were sent to just about all the leading scientists 
quoted extensively in the work. Unfortunately, some, like 
the late great Dr. Paul Gast had passed away in the interim. 

Yet very few of those scientists who received a copy of 
the book took the trouble to respond to this striking Soviet 
thesis. One well-known scientist and space expert returned 
the manila envelope (in which the book was sent) un¬ 
opened. It was marked in his handwriting: “Rejected.” 
Apparently he had seen my name on the- return address, 
and although he knew me not, probably had heard I had 


quoted him in this shocking book and this was too much 
for his sensitive closed mind. He refused to even accept a 
complimentary copy of the work. 

Most did accept it but never bothered to respond one 
way or the other. Probably most passed off the book as 
just the work of another crackpot—in this case “lunatic.” 
The Moon couldn’t possibly be a spaceship. They un¬ 
doubtedly rejected this book despite the fact that the work 
is based almost entirely on factual evidence that both our 
American space scientists and the Soviet scientists them¬ 
selves documented. All we did was cite the facts and apply 
it to the Soviet theory—which, by the way, we might point 
out is the brainchild of two orthodox researchers, not ours. 

Only a few scientists bothered to respond; still fewer 
admitted that the Soviet spaceship theory could be correct. 
One scientist did however, go so far as to encourage me 
to continue my research work and publish the facts what¬ 
ever they might be. 

Realistically, however, the theory is just too bizarre to 
be given open-minded serious consideration. It is just 
simply too far out, too “science-fictionish” to be given even 
passing consideration by orthodox scientists. 

One aging dean of lunar experts did acknowledge receiv¬ 
ing and reading the book—at least in part. That is, he read 
it up to the statement that the “Moon was a spaceship.” 
That turned him off immediately. Then he added: 

“I have not read your entire book . . , [but] read through 
to the suggestion that the Moon was made by human efforts. 
This, of course, cannot be true. Man has a great deal of 
capacity for doing things, but making a moon is beyond his 
capacity. It just cannot be a correct explanation.” 

Although this aging scientist is one of the top men in his 
field, he did have the courage to freely admit that after 
all his and his colleagues study, the Moon remains a com¬ 
plete mystery to man. Still, he could not bring himself 
around to even considering an unorthodox theory. 

Of course, the asinity of the entire episode is pointed 
up by the fact that he was so closed-minded he did not 
even read far enough to realize that in no way did either 
this author or the Soviet researchers who formulated the 
theory ever suggest the Moon was “made by human ef¬ 
forts.” Unquestionably it was made by alien intelligences 


who are obviously well beyond the level of human tech¬ 
nology. Either the good doctor misunderstood the entire 
thrust of the theory or with his strait jacketed orthodox 
mind he felt if the Moon, as the Soviet scientists insist, is 
“the creation of alien intelligence,” this must mean man, 
for in his mind, as in many scientists* minds, the only in¬ 
telligent being in the universe is man. 

Undoubtedly much is left to be ferreted out. With the 
secrecy enshrouding our space program, however, this 
might be difficult to accomplish. For as we have pointed 
out, our government and its space agency have indeed 
been covering up the truth, hiding it from the public mind 
probably because of the fear of panic that such frightening 
news might bring. 

It is left for the people themselves to bring it all out 
into the open. You can help. Maybe if enough people 
marshal themselves and mount enough pressure then we 
can crack this shroud of secrecy wide open. 

After the publication of my first book on this subject, 
Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon f the head of a Midwest 
education association wrote and told me he found the work 
“thought provoking but very troubling.’* 

He said: “Like many, I have suspected for quite some 
time that several of our government agencies have been 
‘keeping things from the public* regarding discoveries made 
during various of our space explorations. Your book only 
serves to confirm and deepen that suspicion. I wish that 
there were some way that citizens could press these gov¬ 
ernmental agencies for further information.” 

There is, of course, always the opportunity to write to 
your elected officials, whether congressmen or President. 
Many of the more highly respected UFO organizations 
(Dr. Hynek’s Center for UFO Studies, APRO, NICAP, 
and MUFON) have over the years continued to criticize 
the government’s cover-up policy in regard to the existence 
of UFOs. 

In regard to the Moon there is another way. If sufficient 
evidence were collected of the more sensational kind in 
regard to the governmental space program cover-up, then 
perhaps the people would be aroused enough to get what 
we’re supposed to have in the country, “a government of 
the people, by the people and FOR the people.” This coun- 


try was designed by our Founding Fathers to be free and 
will survive only with a government that is open and above¬ 
board in its dealings with the people. As citizens of this 
land we have a duty to find out what is going on, to learn 
the truth whatever it might be. 


We do not in the least intend to demean the outstanding 
work that our dedicated scientists have already done. 
Indeed, these quiet heroes devoted to learning the truth 
about the Moon have worked wholeheartedly for years, 
mostly with frustration but not completely without 

As astronaut Eugene Ceman, the last man on the Moon, 
told a conference of space workers at Cape Kennedy in 
1973: “Apollo 17 had the shoulders of giants on which we 
stood as we reached for the stars. . . . These were your 
shoulders and we thank you for them.” 

I sincerely wish to acknowledge that in the writing of 
this work (as well as my first book on this subject, Our 
Mysterious Spaceship Moon) we too have had the shoul¬ 
ders of giants that enabled us to divine the truth about 
our Moon. We thank these many giants of science whom 
we freely quoted and whose work we so frequently cited 
in these books. We thank them—for without them these 
works could not have been written. 

In fact, we must humbly point out that we did not orig¬ 
inate the artificial-Moon theory. Far greater minds than 
ours accomplished this feat. The author, in fact, is only 
an open-minded curious student of life who chanced upon 
it and who followed the facts wherever they led—in this 
case, it would seem, to an unbelievable truth. 

In the truest sense, I am merely a compiler, an organizer, 
a synthesizer, as it were. All credit must go to those scien¬ 
tific giants—first the two Soviet researchers who originated 
the theory, and secondly to the army of international lunar 
experts whose hard work and dedication ferreted out the 
facts and the findings which filled in the skeletal outline 
of the Soviet spaceship theory. The artificial-Moon theory 


is really their brainchild. I am merely its mental midwife. 

It is with this in mind that I appeal to my readers, invit¬ 
ing them to communicate to me any direct or indirect 
knowledge of any such cover-ups. As we have seen, the 
Moon is swirling with mysteries. Who knows but focusing 
the public attention on any one of these revelations might 
be enough to blow the lid on the entire secret closet of 
governmental space cover-ups. 

The evidence we have cited in this book proves that we 
have on our hands today another Watergate—a cosmic 
Watergate. UFOs are swirling around our planet and offi¬ 
cial governmental agencies have tried desperately to pass 
them off as mistaken objects or the product of public hallu¬ 
cination. There appears to be sufficient evidence to con¬ 
clude that the Moon is the base for these UFOs coming to 
our Earth. There is not much doubt about it—we are under 
observation! For what purpose we can only guess. We 
believe, however, that the people should be attuned to 
truth so that if something shocking happens in this regard 
tomorrow, people will be ready for it. Otherwise, if a sud¬ 
den, shocking revelation does come, that might produce 


Perhaps one of the most telling ways we can crack the 
curtain of secrecy is to bring to public attention any shock¬ 
ing examples of cover-up of a startling nature. After my 
first book on the Moon came into print a number of in¬ 
terested readers took the trouble to write me, expressing 
their concern. Some of them imparted tidbits of informa¬ 
tion that proved useful. 

An editor of a prominent national magazine in New 
York asked me bluntly if I had ever run across any ac¬ 
counts of a huge space platform which our lunar astronauts 
were supposed to have sighted on the far side of the Moon. 
He had heard rumors that one many miles across had been 
seen but was covered up by the space agency. At the time 
I told him frankly I had not. But the story piqued my in¬ 
terest and led me to do a little digging. Now we know 


the astronauts did see such a structure (see Chapter 3)— 
at least according to some reports. 

Another magazine editor told me that several readers 
had written to him claiming that one of the astronauts (on 
television )had “picked up what looked like a glass bottle.” 
The astronaut was supposed to have exclaimed as he did 
so: “My God, I don’t believe it, look at this . . 

However, those who communicated this story to the edi¬ 
tor claimed that the television screen suddenly “went blank 
and into some news . . 

Is there anything to this story? Or this one: A high 
school student once enthusiastically related to me the fact 
that he had a complete collection of tapes recorded from 
television commentary of the various Apollo explorations 
of the Moon. He said that one major network was describ¬ 
ing a drilling operation on the Moon. The astronauts, al¬ 
though armed with drills that could go through just about 
anything, were having extreme difficulty penetrating even 
a few inches of lunar crust. Only after great effort did 
they drill into the maria surface and with even greater 
exertion extract this drill. It took prodigious efforts of 
both astronauts tugging at the drill, but when they finally 
succeeded in pulling the drill out, this young man in¬ 
sisted, the television commentator exclaimed: “Look at 
that drill, it’s encrusted with metal shavings.” 

I anxiously awaited the tapes, but finally he told me that 
they were not available. He claimed his kid brother had 
mistakenly taped over the invaluable Apollo legacy to get 
some of his favorite rock hits on tape. 

Is there anything to the story? We don’t know. But if it 
can be proven that this alleged account is true, this one 
item could break the whole Moon cover-up wide open. 
This is the kind of evidence that also could crack the 
mystery of the Moon wide open. 

If any reader has knowledge of this or any other mystify¬ 
ing happening in regard to the Moon or the space program, 
I will be more than glad to hear from you and correspond 
with you about your discovery. 

I would like to steer away from anything of a religious 
nature. One goodhearted soul offered to give me the spiri¬ 
tual secrets of the universe, including the Moon, that she 
claimed she got directly from God. 


Another related this strange Biblical coincidence: The 
initial letters of the names of the first three men on Earth 
(Adam, Abel, and Cain) are the same as those of the 
astronauts who made the first landing trip to the Moon 
(Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins, although the latter never 
walked on the Moon but stayed in orbit). 


Along those same lines but more to my liking was the 
story related to me that our astronauts while on the way 
to the Moon actually heard strange music over their closed 
radio communication system. This party maintains that the 
cabin of the space capsule was filled with beautiful haunt¬ 
ing music that seemed to come from out of nowhere. 
Later the “heavenly” music was identified. It was an old 
Earth-produced piece: “Where Angels Fear to Tread.” 


A lady from California related that a well-known French 
author Robert Charroux in his book Our Mysterious Past 
points out that “mysterious words [were] heard on the 

Charroux claims that a famous French science journalist 
reported that while A1 Worden was walking on the Moon 
(Apollo 15) mysterious words mystifyingly interrupted the 
CAPCOM (Mission Control) communications network. 
Apparently, according to Charroux, it was written up 
widely in the French press, although I have never seen 
any reference to this incident in the American press. The 
French broadcasting network ORTF also carried stories 
about this strange happening, Charroux maintains. 

Charroux also claims that the French weekly Le Meilleur 
(edition 33, page 1) published an article seven columns 
long, headed “Why Has No One Spoken of the Mysterious 
Message Heard on the Moon?” They tantalized their read¬ 
ers with this subtitle: “Twenty Untranslatable Words Which 
Really Sowed the Seeds of Panic?” 

“Perhaps this proves that other men exist—something 


NASA wished to hide,” concludes the French journal. 

What were the words the astronauts were supposed to 
have heard? On August 3, 1971, at exactly 11:00 a.m. 
without explanation the normal space radio communica¬ 
tions faded strangely away and contact with Houston Mis¬ 
sion Control was lost. 

Worden then noticed strange sounds coming through his 
receiver—a weird breathing sound which gradually changed 
into a kind of' whistle. After “stifled murmurs,” vague 
sounds resembling words came through—then a string of 
words—“like a sentence constantly repeated on one note.” 

It is claimed that the transmissions were recorded on 
the lunar module’s tape recorder and Worden transmitted 
them to NASA authorities. 

The entire affair was purportedly suppressed and a news 
blackout apparently was effective in this country as well 
as throughout the rest of the world. Charroux insists that 
the story in Le Meilleur is accurate and that “a conspiracy 
forbade the divulgence of the ‘moon sentence.’ ” He then 
divulges the “forbidden sentence”—which no one yet has 
been able to translate. 

His text is not too clear on this point but apparently 
Charroux who claims he himself heard the message given 
over French radio included two Hebrew words, 

“We thought we had remembered two words from the 
text: ‘Lamina’—and ‘rabbi.’ ” Charroux points out that a 
similar word, “lama” was used by Jesus while he lay dying 
on the Cross (ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHANI—My God, 
My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?). Apparently, how¬ 
ever, there were some misgivings that this word was actu¬ 
ally heard. For he quickly adds: “It is possible we mis¬ 
heard the first word of the sentence which could be ‘mara* 
and not ‘lama.* ” 

So the message as Charroux remembers it is: 


Although Charroux claims some of the words might be 
of Hebrew origin he admits all the others seem to be of 
“uncertain origin.” 

In fact, from his entire account we can conclude every¬ 
thing is “uncertain.” Not only uncertain in content and 


unknown in meaning but uncertain in authenticity and un¬ 
known in import. No authentication for this event has ever, 
to our knowledge, been forthcoming. This is not to say it 
did not happen. It might have. If anyone has any further 
information on this we would be happy to hear from you. 

Charroux concludes with his usual candor: “Perhaps 
some philosophers will find the key to the puzzle.” 

Perhaps our readers will find the answer. Or similar ma¬ 
terial—hopefully better authenticated—which they will re¬ 
lay to us that we may work a little harder in cracking open 
the mystery of our Moon. 

For it appears that it is not going to be done by orthodox 
scientists. Nor will the space agency change its policies 
without our help. They have probably garnered sufficient 
evidence, but as we suspect, they are keeping it under 

It will take the efforts of people like you—open-minded 
searchers for the truth—to find the truth whatever it 
might be. 

The fact is that sufficient public clamor or some dra¬ 
matic discovery might not only break open this cosmic 
Watergate, exposing the greatest cover-up of all time, but 
might lead to a reopening of our investigation of the Moon 
again and possibly even future lunar probes. 

Shortly after Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon was pub¬ 
lished the author was interviewed on a radio station to¬ 
gether with an astronomer of a well-known Midwestern 
observatory. He agreed, surprisingly, that the Soviet theory 
—which he did not accept for lack of sufficient evidence— 
could possibly be correct, that the Moon indeed could be 
a spaceship. He admitted freely that, strangely enough, the 
dozen mysteries delineated by the book did disappear in 
light of this bizarre theory. He told me after the radio 
interview: “Wouldn’t it be remarkable if your book arouses 
the American public enough to cause the Moon-explora¬ 
tion missions to be resumed?” 

“That would be great,” I told him. But realistically, of 
course, this is not going to happen. Undoubtedly man will 
go back to the Moon someday and when he does there are 
a number of fascinating and probably eye opening areas 
that would be worth visiting. Or should we say “revisiting,” 


since with the space program’s secrecy we cannot be sure 
whether or not our astronauts and unmanned space probes 
have not already checked them out. 

In Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon we listed a dozen 
“mystery spots” on the Moon worth visiting. One of them 
was the strange 12-mile bridge sighted over the Sea of 
Crisis back in the fifties (see Chapter 2). Dr. Farouk El 
Baz was quoted in a national magazine as stating that our 
space agency did carry out secret investigations of the 
Moon, and this included this strange artificial-looking 
bridge on the Sea of Crisis.* In similar fashion we went 
through other intriguing “mystery spots.” Here are a half 
dozen more which might produce discoveries that could 
definitely prove the Moon is a spaceship. 


First and foremost, the strange pyramidal, obelisklike 
structures that appear to be artificial and which Soviet space 
engineer Alexander Abramov claims are positioned exactly 
like the major pyramids around Giza near Cairo, Egypt. 
These have probably been closely examined by NASA, 
since our astronauts went to the very same Sea of Tran¬ 
quility on our first trip to the Moon, only the results have 
never been released and probably never will be unless 
enough public pressure can be applied on our government. 


Secondly, the site of the Soviet-discovered monolith, 
that mysterious rectangular block of stone that appears 
strangely enough to be like the monolith of 2001: A Space 
Odyssey, Arthur Clarke’s famous book and movie. (See 
Chapter 17.) 

Thirdly, the inside of “Rangef 9 Crater . The controversial 
“Ranger 7 Crater” would be a good place to concentrate 


*NASA claims that photos of the area where the purported bridge 
was spotted showed nothing unusual. 


our Moon look, this time without the veil of secrecy cover¬ 
ing up our findings. 

The first phase of our Moon exploration the Ranger 
series returned thousands of photos of the Moon’s surface 
—close-up pictures that revealed a great deal about the 
surface of this strange satellite. One of these taken by 
Ranger 7 just before it smashed into the Moon has pro¬ 
duced a storm of controversy. The photo was taken about 
three miles on the last leg of its crash dive and appears to 
show some objects inside a crater. NASA officials claim 
they are just “a cluster of rocks.” Other investigators are 
not so sure. 

No one knows for sure but some investigators like Riley 
Crabb of the Borderland Science Research Organization 
claims that their circular symmetry indicates that whatever 
they are, certainly they are “intelligently constructed.” 

Crabb believes that this conclusion is “confirmed by the 
sharp, straight black shadow cast” by one of two “brilliant 
white shafts” inside the crater. He points out that this 
August 10, 1964, photo published in Missiles and Rockets 
magazine (p. 22), shows “clearly outlined in between the 
bases of the two shafts a perfect circle, perhaps 40 or 50 
feet across. The hole itself is pitch black, as though it led 
into the interior of the moon; but the edges are bright, like 
the edges of a gigantic bubble or lens.” 

Crabb goes on to explain: “As we looked at the Missiles 
and Rockets reproduction of the Ranger photo we became 
aware of two more perfect black holes in the crater, one to 
the left of the left-hand shaft, and one in the top of the 
little cone to the south of the shafts . . .” He concludes: 
“You can be sure that military and civilian photo analysis 
have devoted hundreds of hours to this particular ‘rock’ 
formation, but in view of the continuing ‘silence policy’ on 
Flying Saucers such technical analyses will be classified 
secret for years to come.” (Journal of Borderland Research , 
November-December 1964.) 

Some see in this photo UFOs sitting inside this mys¬ 
terious crater. One such investigator is George Leonard, 
an amateur astronomer who claims that through an ex- 
NASA scientist friend of his he got to look at a composite 
photo of several Ranger 7 pictures, that proves this is pre- 


cisely what they are. This photo, says Leonard, put to¬ 
gether by NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab in California, shows 
a large object in the crater with a “dull metallic finish.” 
The object is “smoothly rounded, symmetrical, and has 
what appears to be a turret-shaped protuberance, which is 
also remarkable for its perfection.” 

Asks Leonard, with an obvious eye on UFOs: “What 
looks like that?” 

He also is convinced that on its gleaming back he can 
discern a strange marking that looks something like an 
English letter Y with a line beneath it. He says a study of 
the world’s alphabets indicates that it is very much like the 
ancient Semitic Z found on the famous ancient Moabite 

If there is any validity to Leonard’s conclusion its impli¬ 
cations are staggering. This remarkable investigator is con¬ 
vinced that whoever is on the Moon was intrinsically in¬ 
volved in mankind’s past. 

“They’ve watched us develop since at least the Bronze 
Age. They’ve had a catbird seat on all our wars and petti¬ 
nesses. They’ve architected and built big things here and 
left signs all over our Earth.” So Leonard concludes. 

Without hesitation Leonard in his intriguing book Some¬ 
body Else Is On the Moon speculates: “The Moon is a 
logical seat for all the UFOs skipping around the fringes 
of our cultures since the dawn of time.” And in Ranger 7 
photos he believes he has found evidence of such lunar 
UFOs, or at least of constructions on the Moon. 

Surely here is a mystery spot worth taking another close 
look atl 


Another oddity of the Moon—and there are many—is 
a strange tunnel about 20 miles long which is lined with 
walls of glass! 

Dr. H. H. Ninineer, director of the American Meteorite 
Museum in Winslow, Arizona, announced this discovery 
back in 1952. He claims that through a good telescope not 
only can the tunnel be seen but the entrance and the exits 
of that tunnel are clearly discernible. 


Located on the western part of the Moon in the Sea of 
Fecundity are two unusual craters Messier and W. H. 
Pickering. These two strange craters are very close together 
but they differ greatly from other lunar craters in that the 
rim or lip of each crater is “noticeably extended in the same 
direction.” (Science Digest, November 1952.) 

Dr. Nininger points out that the tunnel starts here with 
these two weird-looking formations, one the entrance and 
the other the exit. They are on the opposite sides of a 
towering mountain ridge, which is several thousand feet 
high and 15 to 20 miles wide. 

The shape of the respective holes or entrances suggests 
that the same force has created a tunnel through this 

Is this an artificial construction on the Moon? Dr. 
Nininger suggests that it was created by a “meteorite.” 
This magical meteor “moving 20 to 30 miles per second 
would vaporize the powdery dust on contact,” melting 
instantaneously and cooling quickly, thus forming a glazed 

It might seem impossible that any meteor or meteorite 
would do this which most scientists claim would explode 
on contact since even at the slow speed Nininger assigns 
to this slow-moving meteor it would still be travelling at 
72,000 miles per hour! How could it then perform this 
miraculous construction job? 

Another serious problem is that it is difficult to com¬ 
prehend how it could travel horizontally to perform its 
tunneling job. But Nininger believes that a large meteorite 
could sweep low enough, skimming the Moon’s surface, 
tunneling its way through solid rock mountain, dropping 
from the skies hitting and then ricocheting through this 
hard submantle, burning its way through, and leaving in 
its miraculous wake enormous holes that now “mark its 
entrance and exit.” (Science Digest, November 1952.) 

This unnatural explanation does not convince us that this 
is a natural construction. It sounds like a science fiction ac¬ 
count if there ever was one. We are convinced that if and 
when we return to the Moon, as man someday in the future 
most assuredly shall, this mysterious tunnel would certainly 
be worth investigating. Who knows what it may lead 


us into? Perhaps final proof that indeed an alien world 
does exist under this natural rock. 


If we really wanted to get at the heart of the matter, 
there are the strange “plugholes,” huge round openings 
which Dr. H. P. Wilkins of the British Astronomical As¬ 
sociation is convinced may connect with extensive inner hol¬ 
lows of the Moon’s cavernous interior. Are such connecting 
holes the passageways for aliens coming into and out of 
their hollow Spaceship Moon? 

Wilkins claims that he discovered one such huge hole us¬ 
ing one of the most powerful telescopes in Europe. He 
dubs it the “Washbowl,” since it looks like one. This huge 
round opening into the Moon is located in Crater Cassini A 
and is over two football fields across. 

In his intriguing book Our Moon , Dr. Wilkins gives us 
this remarkable description of this “hole” in the Moon: 
“Its inside is as smooth as glass with a deep pit , or plughole 
about 200 yards across , at the center (Emphasis added.) 

An opening like the mouth of a bottle certainly gives the 
appearance of being constructed. What startling discovery 
could be made here? Could this be one of the openings to 
the inner world of this Spaceship Moon? 


Earlier we mentioned another feature of the Moon which 
many astronomers in past centuries just assumed was an 
artificial construction—a straight wall, a ridge over sixty 
miles long which was so strangely straight it was nick¬ 
named “The Railway.” The Soviet scientists who formulated 
the spaceship theory of the Moon speculated that it might 
have been caused when the inner metal shell was ruptured. 
Thus, a huge armor plate inside the Moon, bending under 
the impact perhaps of a huge celestial torpedo, might have 


raised this straight, unnatural fault line of rock, pushing 
it outward. 

The edges do present a steep rock cliff which rises from 
the surface of the Moon in a steady climb for over 1200 
feet at about a sharp 45-degree angle. The area around 
it shows the ghost of a huge crater that may have crashed 
here eons ago. Intriguingly, all around are strange large, 
whitish domes. 

Speculating on a mystery spot such as this can cause the 
imagination to soar. The author wrote a science-fiction 
novel (no, not this one!) depicting what the Moon would 
be like just after the turn of the twenty-first century, at a 
time when man had built three cities on it. Near this 
Straight Wall that the Soviet scientists think may have been 
caused by pushing up of the Moon’s metallic armor plates, 
resulting in this unnatural, artificial-looking cliff of rock, 
astronauts land for a firsthand investigation. During blast¬ 
ing at the base of this strange Straight Wall structure, rocks 
fell away, revealing a metallic-beam construction under¬ 

Soon thereafter, two of the astronauts fall through one 
of the openings here into the inner cavernous hollows of the 
Moon. A rescue mission discovers the shocking inside-out 
world of Spaceship Moon—its alien-looking cities and 
amazing centers of unimaginable construction. For these 
astronauts entering Spaceship Moon was like taking a 
journey into the future, I depicted this alien inside-out 
world of the inner Spaceship Moon as much like the Space¬ 
ship moon conceived by scientist-engineer Dandridge Cole 
in his book Islands in Space . 

Man shall probably never get the opportunity to journey 
to this intriguing inner alien world of the Moon. But on 
the back side of the Moon, strangely enough, nearly direct¬ 
ly opposite the Straight Wall is a huge crack 150 miles long 
and at places more than 5 miles wide! 

If the Moon does have that inner metallic rock shell be¬ 
neath its outer crust this vast opening could be very re¬ 
vealing. The position of this crack intrigues us into this 
speculation: could the gargantuan crack be related in 
formation to the Straight Wall? But this question is theoret¬ 
ical. The practical significance of the great crack in the 


Moon is that it might be a great crack in the veil of rock 
enshrouding the hull of our Spaceship Moon. 

Some of us believe the contours of an amazingly com¬ 
plex intelligent life beyond the Earth can already be 
discerned . 

— Dr . Jacques Vallee 



The question has been asked time and again by the average 
taxpaying American citizen: Why did man go to the Moon? 
If you talk to scientists they will give you all kinds of dif¬ 
ferent reasons. One of the most unusual answers ever to 
come from the scientific world was elicited from Dr. Marcus 
Langseth, a NASA geologist who hails from Columbia 
University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory. Dr. 
Langseth is convinced that “going to the moon is an im¬ 
pulse ingrained in the natural character, as though Amer¬ 
icans were astronautical lemmings. This vague feeling that 
the moon is pulling more toward it than just the tides is at 
the root of a great deal of NASA thinking,” says this lunar 
expert. (Henry Cooper’s Apollo on the Moon,) 

You the reader, now having waded this far into the book, 
undoubtedly sense there were many more vital reasons that 
forced man into going to the Moon than just this fatalistic 
feeling that pervaded NASA scientists in Dr. Langseth’s 

The reader who has stayed with us this far and fought 
his way through the weighty, impressive evidence that in¬ 
dicates clearly that the Moon is a spaceship has been treated 
to some shocking revelations of our space program’s dis¬ 
coveries about this strange world in our skies. Discoveries 
that you undoubtedly found fascinating and perhaps to 
some extent frightening. Moreover, revelations that you 
probably found disturbing. For the question of questions 
that undoubtedly arises again and again in your mind, if 
findings as staggering as those revealed in this book were 
made, if discoveries as shocking as these were made by our 


scientists, how come our space agency did not release this 
information to the media? Why were such fantastic dis¬ 
coveries with such staggering implications for man and his 
world buried or at the very least covered up? 

Without a doubt some were. At the very outset of this 
book we showed how our space agency, contrary to its 
avowed public policy of openness, has, in fact, followed the 
path of secrecy and cover-up in many phases of its opera¬ 

We showed incontrovertible evidence that NASA is hid¬ 
ing the fact that UFOs were seen by astronauts. That 
strange Unidentified Flying Objects were encountered by 
our astronauts in outer space can be proven by anyone 
who open-mindedly reviews the logs of the astronaut-mis¬ 
sion control conversations. 

Furthermore, if the tapes are not enough, we have the 
evidence and testimony of Dr. James Harder of the Uni¬ 
versity of California, who maintains that after making this 
tape discovery himself he confronted NASA officials with 
this evidence and they privately admitted to him that our 
astronauts did in fact see UFOs on a number of Moon 

They also admitted that the government space agency 
covered up these sightings because of, as they put it, “fear 
of public panic.” 

The question now arises, could not our space agency and 
other governmental agencies be hiding the truth from the 
people about the Moon—again for “fear of public panic”? 

Is it possible that the truth about our Moon’s actually 
being a spaceship was surmised by both the U.S. and the 
U.S.S.R.—that they suspected the truth about the Moon be¬ 
fore we began our lunar expeditions, and that the rush to 
get to the Moon was impelled by this mind-boggling knowl¬ 
edge? Was this the great impetus behind the expensive crash 
Moon programs? 

Admittedly, this is only speculation, but we do know that 
our government space agency knew of studies that indi¬ 
cated that something was going on up there on our Moon— 
hundreds of unexplainable moving lights and objects, re¬ 
ported constructions, and unexplainable changes taking 
place on the surface of this strange, supposedly dead world. 


Why did our government carry out and privately publish 
such a study? What did our space experts conclude about 
all this seeming UFO activity taking place on the Moon? 
Why did NASA itself commission Project Moon Blink, a 
program to search for lunar “events” which was carried 
out in cooperation with observatories around the world? 
Undoubtedly our space experts were looking for some¬ 
thing. And at a time when our government and its military 
arms were busy trying to explain away or cover up the ever- 
increasing flood of flying saucers, it appears that possibly 
UFOs were using the Moon as a base of operations. 

In addition, we now know that before we went to the 
Moon several studies, including a motion study of the 
Moon, did indicate that it could be hollow. Scientists in 
general agree that there is no such thing as a naturally 
hollow Moon; that if it is hollow then it was hollowed out 
artificially. Could not a few of our top scientists and gov¬ 
ernment officials (also primarily military) not come to the 
conclusion that indeed it might be, which would mean that 
the Moon has to be a spaceship? And this knowledge 
further was a driving force behind the thrust to get to our 
Moon and check out this strange world once and for all. 

Thus it would appear that, given these facts, there was 
much more behind the crash Moon program than our space 
agency or our government would have us ordinary citizens 
believe—certainly much more than a propaganda race with 
the Russians to get to the Moon first. Most Americans ap¬ 
peared to buy this story. 

Dr. George E. Mueller, NASA’s Association Adminis¬ 
trator for Manned Space Flight summed up some of these 
“reasons why” that lay behind the space program in a state¬ 
ment to Congress which he made back at the outset of our 
lunar program: 

“To the scientific world, there is great interest in the 
origin and history of the moon and its relation to Earth 
and to the solar system. Was it formed with the Earth, 
or captured later? Are there clues to the origin of life? 
To quote the President’s Science Advisory Committee, 
‘Answers to these questions may profoundly affect our view 
of the evolution of the solar system and its place, as well 
as man’s in the larger scheme of things.' ” 

Admittedly, this is true—the Moon may well, in fact, 


affect man’s entire outlook on his own origins and destiny! 
But were the feeble reasons he offered or even the sup¬ 
posed propaganda race with the Soviets the only reasons 
that lay behind our $25,000,000,000 effort to get to the 

Not surprisingly another independent researcher also be¬ 
came intrigued by the Moon. He found revealing NASA 
photos and informed by an ex-NASA scientist willing to 
talk arrived at the same conclusion as we did. George 
Leonard in his mind-boggling book Somebody Else Is On 
the Moon states this thesis boldly: ‘‘The prime reason for 
the United States’ launching an expensive Moon program 
was the recognition at official levels that the Moon is oc¬ 
cupied by intelligent extraterrestrials who have a mission 
which does not include dialogue with us and may even be 
inimical to our long-range welfare.” 

Although we would agree with Mr. Leonard’s overall 
conclusion, we are convinced from our own study of the 
moon that these lunar beings, who every evidence indicates 
have been around for thousands of years are in no way 
inimical to mankind. However we wholly agree with this 
conclusion of Leonard’s that the U.S. and Soviet govern¬ 
ments began Moon exploration because they were tipped 
off by their own scientific studies indicating that the Moon 
was more than just a natural satellite. 

One problem arises even if we are to assume that all 
this is true. It may be understandable for the secretive 
Soviet government to keep all this under wraps, but with our 
open, aboveboard, democratic government, how is this 
possible? This is just like all the other secret maneuvers 
and escapades that Washington has pulled off, be it FBI 
or CIA that there is much that is secret within Washington’s 
bureaucratic halls, as the past decade has proven. And 
there is every evidence also that secrecy swirls around our 
lunar program. 

But again the question arises: Why? 

Can you imagine what panic would ensue if the govern¬ 
ment were to acknowledge that UFOs stream into our 
skies every day? (Some, like Dr. J. Allen Hynek, astron¬ 
omer at Northwestern University and.former Air Force 
consultant on UFOs for twenty years maintain they num¬ 
ber as many as six or seven every day!) Can you imagine 


the additional shock given to the public, if they were in¬ 
formed that aliens are using the Moon as a base of op¬ 
erations and have been for a long time? 

And beyond that, can you imagine the shock of a stun¬ 
ning official announcement that the Moon is really a space¬ 
ship? What if the President of the United States were to 
get on television and announce to everyone that we now 
know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Moon that cir¬ 
cles our Earth is not a completely natural world but a huge 
hollowed-out planetoid steered into orbit around our world? 
Furthermore, that we now know that the Moon is inhabited, 
something our experts have suspected for decades? 

Can you imagine the impact of such a shocking an¬ 
nouncement on the world? The stock market would prob¬ 
ably immediately crash. People might panic, perhaps even 
into a rash of suicides. An epidemic of disorder and chaos 
could sweep the country and the planet. The way people 
were agitated and alarmed by a radio program back in 
1938 might be indicative of what would happen. Perhaps. 
But we doubt it. Despite all the U.S. governmental and 
scientific pronouncements to the contrary, official conclu¬ 
sions of university studies sponsored by the U.S. govern¬ 
ment show that the majority of people today—and the 
educated majority—are convinced that UFOs exist. Why, 
15 million Americans are convinced they have seen a 

So we doubt very much if people would panic. They, in 
our opinion, are ready for the truth—whatever it might 
be. As evidence that people nan “live with it,” we cite 
the fact that the human race lives every day under the 
shadow of the nuclear nemesis and there is no panic. And 
what about those millions who stay in California despite 
the threat from the best scientific sources that a devastating 
earthquake could rock and destroy their beautiful state to¬ 
morrow? They could panic and leave, but few have done 
so. So too we are convinced with the Moon. If the peo¬ 
ple were given the truth they perhaps would even welcome 
it, along with any alien “Moon beings” that might come 
down here and take over, as some science-fiction writers 
imagine. After all, they couldn’t make much more of a 


mess of this Earth than our present leaders have already 
done, could they? 

Seriously, we are convinced that we have on our hands a 
cover-up of cosmic proportions. A cosmic Watergate whose 
lid hides not just earthly indiscretions or corruption on 
the part of governmental officials and politicians, but a 
cover-up with Earth-shaking dimension and implications. 

And this, as we have noted, is not just our conclusion 
but that of several leading investigators. Consider George 
Leonard’s testimony. This professional writer who former¬ 
ly held a number of federal posts in various governmental 
agencies as well as being an amateur astronomer, did a close 
study of the NASA photos—those that he could get his hands 
on—and came to the conclusion that the Moon gives clear 
evidence "of artificial constructions. Further, he is con¬ 
vinced that the Moon is occupied by alien intelligence, and 
that NASA knows this but is carrying on what he calls 
Operation Cover-up. 

Leonard was aided in his history-making search for the 
truth by a pseudonymous ex-NASA scientist, a man who 
one critic of his book Somebody Else Is On the Moon 
actually calls Leonard’s “Deep Throat.” This enterprising 
researcher and reporter had other contacts in the inner 
sanctum of our space agency, who have helped him expose 
the tip of this cosmic iceberg. 

The conclusion of Leonard’s government-shaking study: 
“The Moon is occupied by an intelligent race or races which 
probably moved in from outside the solar system. The 
Moon is firmly in the possession of these occupants. Evi¬ 
dence of Their presence is everywhere: on the surface, on 
the near side and the hidden side, in the craters, on the maria, 
and in the highlands. They are changing its face . Suspicion 
or recogntion of that triggered the U.S . and Soviet Moon 
programs —which may not really be so much a race as a 
desperate cooperation.” (Emphasis added.) 

But it might be objected that it is hard to conceive that 
the Russians and the United States have been cooperating 
in this secret venture in space. Isn’t it interesting that, pur¬ 
portedly just to show goodwill, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. 
carried out a 250-million dollar rendezvous in outer space 
(Apollo-Soyuz)? We know that such a link-up of American 


and Soviet space hardware required that they be made 
compatible with each other. Was such unusual cooperation 
in the paramilitary-space domain not an indication of a 
deeper hidden motive, possibly of future necessary coopera¬ 
tion in space that the knowledge of extraterrestrials out 
there watching us might impel? 

Other hints of this space and lunar cooperation come 
readily to mind. Anyone who has researched the lunar space 
results becomes aware we have been exchanging informa¬ 
tion and data freely back and forth. That we would be so 
generous as to turn over our findings to them is under¬ 
standable given the Santa Claus nature of our free-enter- 
prise system and our generous U.S. government. But that 
the tight-fisted, secretive Communists are cooperating is 
interesting. Yet documents like NASA’s Apollo 17 report 
contains references to such Soviet data and information 
which indicate that they have done just this—handed over 
vital information to us. 

There is even more evidence. George Leonard notes that 
“a careful review of total U.S. and Russian space shots 
seems to indicate that a parceling out of responsibility has 
existed from the start.” (Somebody Else Is On the Moon.) 

Note this: “From the start.” This goes way back to the 
late fifties, when we were still locked in the throes of the 
Cold War—long before the Nixon-Kissinger detente moves 
began. Intriguing. 

Even more intriguing is the alleged meeting that George 
Leonard claims his ex-NASA contact told him took place 
in Europe in the spring of 1975. His source told Leonard 
that the advanced industrialized countries of the world met 
at that time. “The meeting was in England. They wanted 
to talk on the quiet about extraterrestrials and what they’re 
up to. A lot of people at the top are scared.” 

Further, this ex-NASA scientist told Leonard: “They in¬ 
vited a physicist from Colorado, a man named Joachim 
Kuetner, who’d worked on the Moon program and knows 
what’s up there. He could tell them about it first-hand. I 
don’t know exactly what they talked about. But you can 
bet they know now that it’s not Earth people’s Moon any- 

more—if it ever was. It belongs to Them.” (Somebody 
Else Is On the Moon.) 


The implication here, of course, is that the Moon has 
been inhabited since the dawn of man. Leonard’s source 
also told him that a number of top-level scientists inside 
and outside NASA are convinced that the Moon is actually 
a huge hollo wed-out spaceship. 


George Leonard, whose research concentrated on activ¬ 
ities and developments of alien beings on the outside of 
the Moon while we tried “to get beneath the surface of 
things,” as he himself put it, makes an interesting obser¬ 
vation concerning this vital question: “These data [that 
he himself garnered] have clearly shown up in a limited 
number of pictures made available by NASA, following a 
limited amount of study and research performed primarily 
by one person. What would a really systematic search of 
the Moon’s surface produce? How far has NASA gone?” 
(Emphasis added.) 

We echo Leonard’s thoughts, for our work is the result 
of a limited amount of research, and if we alone, without 
ready access to the information uncovered by NASA and 
the Soviet space programs, uncovered this much startling 
information about our Spaceship Moon, what do NASA 
and the Soviet agencies, with all the data, all the evidence, 
and all the information garnered by their top scientists and 
engineers, know about our Moon? 

Would not those revelations stagger the world if these 
findings were ever published? Would not we then have the 
final compelling proof that the world circling us is truly 
a spaceship—and an inhabited one at thatl 



Not for nothing did Santayana once contend that life 
is a movement from the forgotten into the unex¬ 
pected ,. 

—Loren Eiseley 



Many gifted geniuses in the history of mankind seemed 
to have had the ability to see exciting facts of life and our 
universe that no person up to their time knew about* The 
great English poet Shelley, for instance, described the 
Moon in startlingly modern terms. He wrote that our satel¬ 
lite was once an orb “wandering companionless” through 
the cosmos “among the stars that have different birth.” 

This startling revelation comes in his poem “To the 
Moon,” in the second stanza: 

Art thou pale for weariness 
Of climbing and gazing on the earth, 

Wandering companionless 

Among the stars that have different birth . .. 

Exactly what the last international lunar conference 

The question that should haunt every thinking mind: 
How could Shelley have possibly known this? Did he gain 
this insight intuitively or is it simply a good poetic guess? 

It would seem that Shelley, who was steeped in the writ¬ 
ings of ancient classics gained his knowledge from them. 
For Shelley is not alone in possessing startling insights into 
the truth of our satellite. Somehow many great men of 
ancient times guessed the truth about our Moon. There is 
even an entire host of ancient writers .who insist that the 
Moon is a hollow world inhabited by living beings I 


In fact, ancient writings are so filled with this startling 
reference that in 1644 an English bishop, John Wilkins, 
who was himself steeped in ancient classics wrote a book, 
appropriately entitled Discovery of a New World, in which 
he insisted there was a world of living beings inside our 
Moon! The good bishop (brother-in-law of the famous 
Oliver Cromwell of English history) did not arrive at this 
conclusion from the meager scientific evidence of his time 
but from innumerable references in the ancient works in 
which he was widely read. As a scholar of these works 
(mostly Greek and Latin), he had come across references 
time and again to the fact that our Moon was a hollow, 
inhabited world. 

Finally, overwhelmingly convinced that these great an¬ 
cient thinkers knew what they were talking about, the good 
bishop decided to collect together this evidence in a book. 
He came to the conclusion that the Moon was indeed not 
a solid orb. For as he says in his introduction: “If there 
be a habitable world in the moon (which I now affirm) it 
must follow that her orb is not solid as Aristotle supposes.” 

Who does Wilkins cite as possessing this esoteric knowl¬ 
edge? For one Xenophanes, renowned student of Socrates, 
who, as he put it, “conceived the moon to be a great hollow 
body, in the midst of the whole concavity, there should 
be another globe of sea and land, inhabited by men as our 

Fantastic? Hold onto your exclamations! This is just the 


Perhaps the most astounding quote that Bishop Wilkins 
makes comes from the great Orpheus, one of the most 
ancient of Greek poets, who, interestingly, some claim was 
the son of the Greek god Apollo, after whom the entire 
manned Moon landing and exploration program was 

This god (whom many modern historical scholars, as 
we shall see later in this chapter, now consider might have 
been a real person, and who Aeschylus, the father of Greek 
drama, tells us could “calm the seas”) purportedly was the 


author of the ancient Orphic hymns, in which he is thought 
to have transmitted much knowledge, much of it accurate 
pieces of information, especially in the field of astronomy, 
that turn out to be astounding. His other revelations are 
equally so. 

Speaking about the Moon, Orpheus, the Greek god of 
wisdom and father of the wondrous Greek culture, tells 
mankind “that it hath many mountains, and cities and 
houses in it. ... To him assented Anaxorgas, Democritus 
and Heraclitus . , . All who thought it to have firm solid 
Ground, like our Earth, containing in it many large fields , 
champion grounds and divine inhabitants! This belief of 
Orpheus was related by Plutarch, Diogenes and Laertius.” 
So relates Bishop Wilkins. (Emphasis added.) 

In light of the Spaceship Moon theory, utterly as¬ 

Before we get to some other startling insights revealed 
by Orpheus “the Moonman,” as he was called, let us con¬ 
sider his background. Appropriately, as we have seen, 
the entire Moon landing program and its individual space 
expeditions have been named after his father, one of the 
greatest gods of antiquity. A few scholars claim that 
Apollo, who was the twin brother of Artemis, goddess of 
the Moon, was in actual fact an ancient astronaut. 

Could it be possible that this god of prophecy, who held 
sway at the temple of Delphi, this god of poetry, healing, 
and light, and his enigmatic son and all the other gods who 
lived on Mount Olympus were actually alien beings from 
beyond this planet? Of course, there is no way of proving 
this intriguing speculation, and without proof it is ridiculous 
to consider it, as some sensationalistic writers do, “absolute 

But we do know that the Orphic hymns, which ancient 
tradition tells us this Greek god of wisdom authored, do 
contain much startlingly advanced astronomical knowledge. 
Advanced, that is, for such an ancient work. 

A contemporary astronomer, C. S. Chassapis, analyzed 
the Orphic hymns and came to the conclusion that the 
ancient Greeks of the second millennium (2000 b.c., or 
4000 years ago!) indeed did have an advanced knowledge 
of astronomy. Chassapis claims that the author of these 


Orphic poems, whoever he was, knew that the seasons 
were caused by Earth’s rotation around the Sun along the 
ecliptic, and knew that the torrid, temperate, and frigid 
zones existed on our planet. 

Orpheus is generally considered to be the author of these 
works* Chassapis points out that the work itself indicates 
that Orpheus could figure the solstices and calculate the 
equinoxes. He must have also known that Earth’s rotation 
on its axis causes the apparent rotation of the Sun and the 

Furthermore, Chassapis also points out that the second- 
milennium Greeks used a calendar of twelve months, 
which they calculated from full moon to full moon. And 
they seemed to know that all phenomena are governed by 
universal cosmic laws. Tradition, which tells us that Or¬ 
pheus revealed all this in his hymns, holds that Orpheus 
is responsible for revealing the fact that the world is “egg- 
shaped,” and he is given credit for being the ancient 
Greeks’ source of knowledge about mountains on the 
Moon I 

All this is startlingly advanced knowledge for mere 
backward Earthlings who supposedly just crawled out of 
caves! But there is more that this “god-man” revealed to 
humans which really rocks us back on our heels and makes 
us wonder if indeed Orpheus, along with his father, Apollo, 
and the other gods, was not a myth from the planet Earth 
but a real being alien to this world—an ancient astronaut. 
Orpheus also revealed to mankind that man’s nature is 
dual: that he is in part of the Earth, and in part of the 

In one revealing, mind-blowing passage this Moonman, 
this son of Apollo, tells us something that before the facts 
were known about our Moon meant nothing—but in light 
of the Spaceship Moon theory means everything. Orpheus 
supposedly uttered this revealing statement about his fellow 
heavenly gods: “These innumerable souls they fell [traveled] 
from planet to planet, and in the abyss of space, lament 
the heaven they have forgotten.” 

These startling, stunning words are astounding, for they 
seem to imply the existence of intelligent life on other 
worlds and that advanced space beings came to our planet 


from another corner of the universe. They are particularly 
revealing in light of Spaceship Moon, which he tells us is 
hollow and “has many cities and divine inhabitants’* in¬ 
side it. 

Since so many Greek gods were connected in one way or 
another with the Moon, could not Orpheus be referring to 
the very beings who came into orbit around the planet 
Earth in this Spaceship Moon? And was not Orpheus im¬ 
plying that these “gods” who came from this Moon had 
actually traveled great distances through space for eons? 
That they longed for that corner of the cosmos from 
whence they came? 

Mind-boggling! We do know that one Greek myth in¬ 
forms us that Orpheus the Moonman was supposedly slain 
by Zeus, head of the gods, “for divulging divine secrets.” 
After his mortal life was over, the myth continues, Or¬ 
pheus returned to the Moon. 

With Orpheus’ words haunting our minds, we come to 
ponder anew that question of questions: Is this mere myth 
or is there reality hidden here? Was Orpheus a real being 
and was he not indeed revealing facts about our mysterious 

Very few scholars today, of course, would hold that 
these Greek “sky-gods” were in reality spacemen—superior 
beings from another planet. Such science writers, however, 
as the British editor Brinsley La Poer Trench, and French 
author Jean Sendy, as well as the late Otto Binder, former 
NASA science researcher, do claim that they were ancient 
astronauts. Obviously, no ancient Greek held this wild the¬ 
ory or was even aware of such a possibility. However, 
unquestionably the ancient Greeks, even the greatest think¬ 
ers like Aristotle, Plato, and Pythagoras, and yes, even 
Socrates, never really doubted that the “gods” existed— 
that they were real beings. In fact, Pythagoras and Socrates 
believed that they also received special inspiration from 
these beings. 

Did the alien culture bearer who spoke about the stars 
and taught mankind a great deal of advanced knowledge 
beyond the ken of Earthlings of that time actually exist? 
The historian Will Durant holds that he “very probably 
existed, though all that we know now of him bears the 


marks of myth.” (The Life of Greece, Simon & Schuster, 

The remaining quotes of the ancients that Bishop Wilkins 
gives in his startling book Discovery of a New World seem 
tame by comparison. But nonetheless shocking. For Wilkins 
tells us that Pythagoras, the great ancient Einstein/da Vinci 
of the ancient Greek world, “did affirm that the Moon is 
Terrestrial and that she is inhabited as this lower world 
[Earth], that those living Creatures and Plants which are 
in her, exceeding any of like kind, with us in the same 
Proportion, as their Days are larger than ours by 15 
times.” (P. 79.) 

This too is a remarkable revelation, for how could the 
ancients have known that the Moon had a two-week-long 
day? It is actually just about about 15 times longer than 
ours. How could Pythagoras have known this? We do not 
know, unless he was privy to other revelations of the “gods” 
themselves. It is known that Pythagoras, considered the 
founder of Greek mathematics, had spent twenty-two years 
in Egypt, where he was in the inner sanctum of highly 
knowledgable priests who were supposed to be privy to the 
esoteric knowledge of the ancients and even of the “gods.” 

Similarly, Wilkins tells us Plato agreed with Pythagoras. 
As the good Bishop informs us: “To this opinion of Pythag¬ 
oras Plato also assented, when he considered that we may 
often read in him, and his followers of another Aethera 
Terra, and lunes populi, that is an Athereal Earth, and 
Inhabitants of the Moon.” 

Plato, like Pythagoras, spent considerable time traveling 
throughout Egypt. After the death of Socrates he joined 
the secret Pythagorean societies of the time and was intro¬ 
duced into the inner sanctum of esoteric knowledge. 

Maybe this accounts for Plato’s strange philosophy of 
a world of ideas and his belief that thinking is essentially 
remembering and that the real world of ideas exists not on 
this Earth, which is merely a “shadow world,” but else¬ 
where. According to Wilkins, that other “real world” was 
the world of the “gods” inside the Moon! 

Thinking is essentially remembering? Perhaps it refers 
to remembering back to a time when, as all mythologies 
relate, “the gods” came down from the heavens and freely 


communed with man. Maybe, as Leonardo da Vinci points 
out, Plato was right in asserting that man knows all things 
but has forgotten most. 

These are admittedly strange, startling thoughts. But no 
stranger than the idea behind them or the thoughts and 
knowledge that generated them, the mysteries of Moon as 
related by the ancients. For Bishop Wilkins, the classical 
scholar, astounds us with these revelations. 

Discovery of a New World, which reveals what the 
ancient “gods” revealed about the Moon—that it is a hol¬ 
low world with cities inside of it and is indeed the home of 
“gods”—however, does not deal with ancient revelations 
only. Wilkins claims that some medieval thinkers in his 
own time also held that the Moon was an inhabited world. 
Even great scientists as Kepler, along with Copernicus, Wil¬ 
kins insists, held that Moon was filled with living beings. 
In Kepler's case, according to Wilkins, he held it was 
inhabited on the inside! 

Wilkins says: “Kepler calls this world by the Name of 
Levania from the Hebrew word meaning Moon and our 
own Earth-revolving world by reason of its Diurnal rev¬ 
olution appears unto them constantly to turn Round, and 
therefore he stiles (sic) them who live in that Hemisphere 
which is towards us, by the title of Subvolens, meaning they 
who revolve under because they enjoy the sight of this 

It might be objected that Kepler only put forth these 
ideas in his science-fiction novel Somnium (The Dream). 
Not according to Wilkins, for he asserts: “And Kepler did 
not jest . . . indeed he protests that he did not publish 
them either out of Humor or Contradiction ... or from 
a desire for Vain-glory, or in a Jesting Way, to make him¬ 
self or others merry, but after a considerate and solemn 
reason, for the discovery of the Truth!” 

Wilkins also asserts that “Copernicus affirms this Hypoth¬ 
esis along with the great ancients Aristarchus and Philolus.” 
Not only does Wilkins hold that Kepler claimed the Moon 
to be inhabited, but at least one writer—former NASA 
researcher Otto Binder—speculates that the space journey 
to the Moon Kepler described might have actually taken 
place. Or at the very least spacemen who made the trip 
imparted this knowledge to Kepler. 


Why would Binder make such a preposterous claim? 
Simply because the knowledge contained in that science- 
fiction fantasy is “astonishingly accurate in details/’ Kep¬ 
ler wrote of principles of space flight that we know 
today to be established fact—the shock of acceleration, 
weightlessness of the body, free fall in orbit, in addition to 
amazingly accurate descriptions of spacesuits that had to 
be worn by crews of the spacecraft. Dr. Clifford Wilson, 
noted scholar, investigated Binder’s claims that he set forth 
in his book Unsolved Mysteries of the Past and claims “it 
is possible that Kepler’s terminology and knowledge could 
to a great extent be attributed to his own capacity and fore¬ 
sight as an astronomer.” How else explain such knowledge 
back in the 1600 s? 

Although most literary and scientific scholars would 
most certainly dispute Wilkins and Binders’s interpretation 
of Kepler’s book, which was really the first lunar guide¬ 
book, simply because it was written in a pseudo-scientific, 
partially mystical manner, he did people his Moon with 
strange beings who lived underground in huge caverns, the 
kind of caverns that we have pointed out some scientists 
speculate might exist inside the Moon. 

Samuel Butler, the English poet, wrote of Kepler’s 

. . . Th’ Inhabitants of the Moon, 

Who when the Sun shines not at noon. 

Do live in Cellars underground, 

Of eight miles deep and eighty around. 

What about John Wilkins, the English bishop himself? 
What does he believe about the Moon? Unquestionably 
his was a serious book which held the Moon to be inhabited 
inside. He obviously also agrees with the great ancients 
and claims that “there are high mountains, deep Vallies 
and spacious plains in the body of the Moon.” 

He also predicted that someday man will ferret out the 
truth. “That tis probable for some posterity, to find a con¬ 
veyance to this world, and the Inhabitants there to have 
commerce with them. Tis the Opinion of Kepler that as 
soon as the art of flying is Found out, some of their 


Nation [Germany] will make one of the first colonies, that 
shall Transplant into that other World.” 

Wilkins’s final proposition states: “That tis probable that 
there may be inhabitants in this other world but what kind 
they are is uncertaine (.sic) 

This statement also bears up under the latest facts. 

Was Wilkins “loony”—a lunatic or crackpot? Hardly. 
For, as Walter Sullivan points out in his book We Are Not 
Alone , “Wilkins was one of those men of that period who 
bristled with ideas.” He helped form a society of savants 
which explored through discussion and speculation many of 
the new exciting avenues of direction that science and 
knowledge was taking at the time. These weekly meetings, 
often held in Wilkins’s own quarters, included such greats 
as Robert Boyle, famed for his law on the compression of 

k. _ _ 

gases, Sir Christopher Wren, outstanding architect of St. 
Paul’s Cathedral in London, and Samuel Pepys, well-known 
English diarist. Even Newton joined this distinguished 
group later. And that group’s name? It became in time the 
famed Royal Society, which Walter Sullivan calls “one of 
the most distinguished associations of scientists ever 

Nothing hut the admission of life and intelligence in¬ 
habiting the space around the earth-moon , binary- 
planet system will provide the UFO data with a com¬ 
mon denominator of explanation and rationality . 

—Morris Jessup 



When man went to the Moon, many scientists secretly 
hoped and some fully expected to find evidence that extra¬ 
terrestrial beings had been there before us. One such scien¬ 
tist who is convinced that such alien structures might be 
found is the British space expert V. F. Foster: “In reality 
such artifact devices may well embody the techniques and 
principles of superhuman knowledge. Almost certainly, we 
will soon encounter these objects on the Moon!” 


The hopes of man sometimes are translated into fantasy 
writings. And as some philosopher has said “the wish is the 
father of the thought”. Scientists had longed to find evi¬ 
dence to prove that man is not alone in the universe. It was 
not surprising that the great science fiction writer Arthur 
Clarke came up with a very popular book and film 2001: 
A Space Odyssey which projected the discovery of such 
an alien artifact—a huge monolith buried on the Moon 
that emitted strong radio waves when discovered. 

Now amazingly it appears that the Soviet Union’s space 
probe has discovered a startlingly similar artifact. For a 
UPI news report based on a Soviet government announce¬ 
ment claims that on February 14, 1973 a Russian remote 
controlled space robot (Lunokhod 2) while probing the 
Taurus Mountain region (the same region ironically where 
we sent our last Apollo probe Apollo 17) discovered an 
unusual monolith,' a smooth stone slab about a meter long, 
which remarkably resembled the smoothly carved stone 
monolith much like the one in 2001: A Space Odyssey. 
The Soviet government report (announced by Tass) indi¬ 
cated it was like a sculptured piece of stone, “a plate . . . 
(with) a smooth surface”. 

The full UPI news report stated: 


• The Lunokhod 2 moon robot parked just over a 
mile from the Taurus Mountains Wednesday (Febru¬ 
ary 14) and probed an unusual slab of smooth rock 
blasted into view by a large meteor, the Tass News 
Agency said. 

• This one-meter long plate has proved to be a strong 
monolith. The eight-wheeled robot, which arrived on 
the moon January 16, was nearly three miles from its 
landing site on the Sea of Serenity. 

• The plate has a smooth surface, whereas giant 
stones lying nearby are pockmarked with holes of 
craters left by tiny meteorites, Tass said. 

If such a discovery has actually been made, it is mind- 
boggling. First, Jules Verne in the nineteenth century de¬ 
scribed man’s first landing on the Moon and was uncannily 
correct, not only on the point of departure (the coast of 


Florida about 50 miles from the actual Apollo blast off); 
not only on the exact number of crewmen (three) but even 
with the correct speed the rocket-like projectile had to reach 
to break the bonds of earth’s gravity. Now it appears that 
science fiction again has mirrored a future happening. It 
almost makes one wonder whether or not someone is out 
there watching us and leading us on. . .. 

But, as shocking as this discovery is, another is even 
more profound. It too, eerily, was predicted by Arthur 
Clarke. Actually, Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey novel 
was based on an earlier short story (“The Sentinel”) which 
told how a similar device was purposely planted by an 
intelligent race of aliens to enable them to learn about the 
progress of man. And when discovered and examined by 
man, it touched off a series of prearranged messages via 
radio signals which were automatically sent to another 
part of the universe. 

This kind of automatic warning system would enable 
them to monitor not only man’s presence on the Moon, but 
in turn would let man know that an alien intelligence had 
visited this part of the universe. According to some scien¬ 
tists who speculate along these lines, such a device could be 
planted that could conceivably allow these distant beings 
to monitor Earth broadcasts, both radio and television, and 
thus enable them to keep a close watch over our progress 
(or lack of it). 


Believe it or not, a similar device of this kind has been 
discovered, a few scientists claim. Only it isn’t a monolith 
buried in the Moon’s surface but an unmanned “probe” 
robot satellite placed in orbit around the Moon thousands 
of years ago. 

A Scottish astronomer named Duncan Lunan claims that 
he discovered such a robot satellite that was placed in orbit 
around our Moon. And he insists he has even translated its 
message to mankind. These startling claims were recently 
published in a research paper by Lunan in Spaceflight , the 
journal of the prestigious British Interplanetary Society. 


This society is an international scientific organization of 
astronomers and other scientists which is headquartered in 

Leonard Carter, the executive secretary of the British 
Interplanetary Society, claims that Professor Lunan dis¬ 
covered this unusual satellite after studying “radio echoes 
that have been known since the 1920’s, but couldn’t be 
explained as having originated from earth.” (D. A. Lunan, 
“Space Probe from Epsilon Bootis,” Spaceflight , April 
1973, 15:4, pp. 122-33.) 

In December 1927 a young Norwegian specialist on 
electromagnetic waves, Professor Carl Stormer, learned 
that some American researchers had received strangely 
delayed radio signals seemingly emanating from around 
the Moon. Stormer teamed with a Dutchman, Van der Pol 
from the Philips Research Institute in Einhoven, and in 
September 1928 began a series of experiments. They radi¬ 
ated radio call-signs of different lengths at 30-second 

Within three weeks they received these signals back, but 
with delays from 3 to 15 seconds. The radio signals were 
registered with these delay intervals (in seconds)*: 8—11— 
15-3-13-8^8-12-15-13-8-8. This radio phenomenon was 
received again all through February 1929. These strange 
radio echoes were reported by researchers all over the 

On October 24, thirteen days later, and on October 28, 
48 more signals were received. 

In August 1929 Professor Stormer published his findings. 
Almost immediately theories began to spring up trying to 
explain how the delayed shortwave impulses occurred. 
Could they perhaps be somehow reflected radio waves, pos¬ 
sibly somehow reflected back from the stars? This ridiculous 
explanation was rejected along with the obvious possibility 
that they were reflections from the Moon. 

While scientists continued to ponder this problem, the 
radio signals continued to be received through the 1930s 
and into the forties. 

In the early sixties Professor Robert Bracewell of the 
Radio Astronomy Institute of Stanford University theorized 
that the signals could be a message from alien intelligence 


in outer space. BraceweU observed that if alien beings 
wanted to get in touch with us, they might use the delayed 
return of signals. The radio signals with delays perhaps did 
contain a message! Perhaps someone or something out 
there, according to BracewelTs suggestion, was trying to 
send us a message by trying to draw, as it were, a space 
picture with this series of delayed radio signals. Professor 
Lunan of Scotland, who was in communication with Brace- 
well, took the suggestion seriously and set to work trying 
to figure out this conundrum. He got hold of some of the 
original echo data, although unfortunately much of it ap¬ 
pears to have been lost. 

In 1973 the British Interplanetary Society’s publication 
Spaceflight published Lunan’s claim that an artificial satel¬ 
lite was beaming a message via delayed radio signals to 
Earth. According to the executive secretary of the learned 
and respected society, Leonard Carter, they did this to give 
Lunan’s unbelievable claims an airing and to stimulate 
scientific work in this area. 

Lunan announced in the British 'Interplanetary Society’s 
journal that he was convinced that the radio signals were 
emitted from an artificial satellite that was placed in orbit 
around the Moon by unknown alien beings about 12,600 
years ago. He claimed a computer on this satellite was 
preprogrammed so that it responded to radio waves from 
our planet whenever its own position in relation to our 
Earth was suitable for reception. Our radio signals were 
recorded by the satellite and sent back on the same wave 
length, only with “intelligent delays” to communicate a 
message which eventually intelligent man on the planet 
Earth would recognize! 

According to Carter, spokesman for the British Inter¬ 
planetary Society, “Lunan plotted the echoes on a graph. 
Oddly they seemed to make a series of dots outlining the 
[known] constellations. But they were slightly dis¬ 
torted. . . .” However, Lunan has gone into the question 
of this distortion and alteration. And the dots related to 
the constellations as they were about 13,000 years ago. 

Carter then relates that Lunan became convinced from 
his studies of this particular constellation that this satellite 
robot was put into orbit by inhabitants of an alien planet 
which orbits a sun of the star called Epsilon Bootis. 


However, Carter notes that Lunan, even after discovering 
this time lag in the echoes, found that the star Epsilon 
Bootis was still out of position on his graphs. Lunan also 
noted that a series of dots resembled no constellation at 
all, so he concluded that these really represented echoes 
of various durations, and really contained a message. 

Lunan’s research report indicates that computers on this 
satellite robot probe transmit the message whenever they 
are triggered by radio waves sent from Earth at a certain 
undetermined frequency. 

This robot satellite placed in orbit thousands of years 
ago lay dormant, circling the Moon, until the 1920s, when 
men on the planet Earth began sending radio waves into 
space. This triggered the device, which has been sending 
a message to mankind ever since. The Scottish astronomer 
now believes he has translated the message. Here it is: 







Lunan’s work certainly is intriguing. But does his inter¬ 
pretation have validity? Remember, as we have noted, this 
interpretation is based on the unexplained radio echoes 
heard in the late twenties and early thirties, detected by 
French, Dutch, and Norwegian radio researchers who at 
the time were transmitting a series of telegraphic code 
broadcasts. Only they received back two sets of echoes. 
They noticed that it took one seventh of a second for the 
return of the first echo, the exact time it would take to 
bounce a radio wave off the ionosphere. 

Lunan calculated that “because a second set of echoes 
came back after delays of three to fifteen seconds, the 
messages could have been intercepted, interpreted and then 


rebroadcast by an object of intelligence circling the Moon,” 

Once it dawned on Professor Lunan that the delays 
could be coded messages, he set to work and translated the 

In a short time Professor Lunan made his discovery. “To 
my astonishment,” Lunan declares, “the dots made up a 
map of an easily-recognized constellation—the Constella¬ 
tion Bootes in the northern sky. The curious pattern of 
delayed echoes was a pattern of star positions.” 

Lunan believes the alien beings who set this satellite 
into orbit around the Moon were from the star Epsilon in 
this constellation. This star, astronomers now know, is one 
that has exhausted the reserves of hydrogen in its core and 
is contracting and growing hotter. Any intelligent life on 
any of these planets circling this dying star would have to 
leave this solar system altogether in order to survive. If we 
were in such a position and had to leave our sun, this would 
be the best way to do it: Dandridge Cole and Isaac 
Asimov’s conception of hollowing out a nearby asteroid 
or planetoid, filling it with the necessary supplies and 
accouterments of their civilization, and setting sail on a 
powered, self-contained, self-recycling enclosed world away 
from their dying star and into the endless oceans of space 
of the outer universe. 

Perhaps this is what drove the beings who built the lunar 
spaceship world now in orbit around the Earth. Is there 
any connection between the two? It is intriguing that Lunan 
calculated that the alien beings who placed their robot 
satellite into orbit around our Moon did so 12,600 years 
ago. This figure is strikingly close to the figure given by 
Bellamy, who calculated that the Moon came into orbit 
around our Earth between 11,500 and 13,500 years ago! 
(See Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon.) 

Could it be that these alien beings who steered the Moon 
into orbit around our planet were the same beings who left 
this artificial satellite in orbit around our Moon? 

Although the findings of Duncan Lunan, president of 
the Scottish Association for Technology and Research in 
Astronautics, have yet to be verified, their implication is 
staggering. One scientist commenting on Lunan’s findings 
(who claims that the chance of different radio echo delays 


forming star maps purely by coincidence would be 10,000 
to 1) maintains this satellite might be a highly sophisticated 
computer with an enormous store of information ready to 
be imparted to mankind! He strongly believes that if this 
alien space probe is confirmed, concentrated effort should 
be made to “interrogate” it. 

It is precisely for this reason that a group of British 
scientists have begun a serious attempt that could prove 
to be one of the most fateful and profound in the entire 
history of mankind. 

How can this be done? R. N. Bracewell of the Radio 
Astronomy Institute, Stanford University, who originally 
suggested that an unmanned space probe might be used by 
aliens to beam a message via delayed radio waves, accord¬ 
ing to Lunan claimed: “If we returned the signals to it 
again, it would know it had established contact with in¬ 
telligence. . . .” 

“Should we be surprised,” Bracewell writes, “if the 
beginnings of its messages were a TV image of a constel¬ 

Lunan suggested that not only radio probes be used but 
says “attempts might be made to contact the spacecraft 
by laser probing. . . ( Spaceflight, April 1973.) 

He also suggests radar attempts. 

Although Lunan’s theory is far from proven, scientists 
are planning to put it to the test. Anthony Lawton, a Brit¬ 
ish computer specialist, said an experiment will send radio 
signals to try to stir the supposed satellite into another 

What is the opinion of other scientists connected with 
this tremendous discovery? Do they believe that Lunan’s 
interpretation is correct? 

Professor Ronald N. Bracewell of Stanford University, 
one of America’s leading radio astronomers, admits he has 
been exchanging research material on this matter with 
Lunan for the last few years. He does not discount Lu¬ 
nan’s interpretation of the radio signals, but has admitted 
that he has reservations about them. 

As Bracewell explains: “If he’s right in his thinking this 
material did contain a message. However, Lunan’s repre¬ 
sentation of the dots as the constellation of 13,000 years 


ago may not he quite right. It could be simply because 
this is not a message at all.” 

Leonard Carter of the British Interplanetary Society 
agrees with Brace well that in fact Liman’s interpretation 
might not be correct. He said that his society published 
Lunan’s research findings “so that any scientist with records 
of the mysterious echoes can bring them to the attention 
of scientists working in the field.” 

Concludes Carter: “There will have to be a complete 
reading of all this material to check all the echoes.” 

“They [the echoes] exist in fact. When one plots them 
as Lunan did, one gets a very, very curious result. It’s in 
the interpretation of them that one let’s one’s hair down. 
It could mean many things.” 

Lunan is convinced his work has been verified. Addi¬ 
tional researches he has worked out have produced more 
star charts based on the delayed echoes. Lunan now has 
come up with six different star maps. By studying them all 
together he interprets that “every one of the reference lines 
points to a star called Epsilon Bootes,” which he believes is 
the point of origin of this alien Moon satellite. 

However, another researcher, Anthony Lawton, in his 
book Ceti (Warner Books, 1976), claims that Lunan is 
wrong. First of all, he believes that he has solved the puz¬ 
zle of “the Long Delayed Echoes of the Twenties,” insist¬ 
ing that they were “not received in the sequence Lunan used 
them to compile his star patterns—and, in any case, many 
other star systems could have been made to fit the same 
sequence.” So states Lawton.* 

Furthermore, Lawton claims that “they were not from 
an alien probe” but that “they are a perfectly natural 

Whether or not Lunan’s interpretation is correct, two 

* Lawton believes that the LDEs (Long Delayed Radio Echo Sig¬ 
nals) are “caused by signal reflection from the upper atmosphere.” 

He does admit: Some researchers might now suggest that an alien 
probe could well be using the Lagrange area (around the Moon) 
as an Earth-orbiting “parking lot” from where it is sending us signals. 
He objects, however: “This is unlikely because the power needed 
by such a probe would make it a very conspicuous object.” This 
appears weak, for even given the rapid pace of technology that can 
put power packs in minute packages, what could aliens millions if 
not billions of years ahead of us accomplish? 


things are certain. First, that radio signals have been de¬ 
tected in the vicinity of the Moon by various radio research¬ 
ers at various times. In 1927, 1928, and 1934 a series of 
mysterious signals was intercepted on the Earth. More 
radio signals came through in 1935, a series of mysterious 
signals intercepted on Earth by other scientists. And in 1935 
scientists Van der Pol and Stormer did pick up echoing 
radio signals around the Moon. They calculated that ac¬ 
cording to the time lag the signals seemed to be reflected 
from a large object about twice the distance that Earth 
is from the Moon, or about 500,000 miles away! 

As this radio phenomenon continued to occur, other 
scientists in the past decades narrowed the object’s position 
to “an area 60 degrees behind the Moon as the lunar world 
orbits the Earth. This object could be the robot satellite that 
Duncan Lunan believes is emitting the strange alien mes¬ 
sage.” It is possible that it could even be a different 
one very much like it. 

Science writer Joseph Goodavage claims: “The object 
trailing the Moon at twice the Earth-Moon distance has so 
many peculiarities that some scientists are sure it’s artificial. 
It would be impossible for a large asteroid to maintain a 
relative [geocentric] velocity equal to the Moon at that dis¬ 
tance.” {Saga, April 1974.) 

If this object is actually the Lunan satellite and his mes¬ 
sage is accurate, we are still left with this tremendous fact 
to ponder: Epsilon Bootes, the star from which our alien 
visitors purportedly came, is 103 million light-years away 
—well beyond our Milky Way Galaxy! 

For a cosmic spaceship to make that tremendous journey, 
even at the speed of light, would require 103 million years! 

As Goodavage concludes: “Nothing we know of, and 
certainly no living creature or organization of entities that 
we can imagine, is capable of cohesion for such a vast 
period of time.” {Saga, April 1974.) 

But then again, the alien beings of this Spaceship Moon 
might be. Man, if we are to believe scientists of Earth, has 
been on our own spaceship planet for the past few mil¬ 
lion years, making tediously slow progress. Now man has 
taken his first feeble infant steps into space. And he has 
reached the Moon. 

Already some men of Earth have conceived the scheme 


of hollowing out an asteroid or planetoid and converting it 
into a completely self-contained, self-recycling, self-sustain¬ 
ing world to journey through the cosmos to the stars, A 
journey that theoretically could last millions upon millions 
if not billions of years. And even if and when man’s first 
self-made spaceship world should wear out or be damaged 
beyond repair, he could simply lock himself into orbit 
around another large asteroid or planet with a good-sized 
moon (as our own Spaceship Moon tenants might have 
done) and fashion it into a new world. 

Perhaps this is what will happen to man someday. Per¬ 
haps thousands or even mere hundreds of years from now 
man may find himself hurtling through the universe in a 
similar spaceship, journeying through the endless reaches 
of space. And, who knows, someday, somewhere, some of 
man’s ancestors will be puttering around some world on 
a satellite similar to that which alien beings may have left 
in orbit around Earth, complete with a message to some un¬ 
known beings. And we might be leaving a map of our star 
system for some intelligent beings to figure out 


Have we not lately in the Moon 
Found a new world to the old unknown? 
Discovered seas and lands Columbus 
And Magellan could never compass? 

—Samuel Butler 



Shortly after the last Mercury space mission was run, NASA 
received an interesting letter from a motor mechanic in 
Milwaukee. It read: “I see from my newspaper today that 
the Mercury program cost 2 dollars and 6 cents for every 
man, woman and child in the United States of America. I 
enclose a mail order for $2.06, and I’d like to see the whole 
thing over again.” 

We would like to see the Apollo Moon missions run 
again. We would like to go back once more to take another 
close look, this time with our eyes wide open and with an 
open press policy for our space agency. However, this is 


unlikely to happen for a long, long time—if ever. Man 
may go back someday but it is doubtful that he will for 
another decade or more. 

Originally ten flights to the Moon had been scheduled, 
two more after the epoch-ending Apollo 17. In fact, Apollo 
18 and 19 rockets were already paid for and the astronauts 
trained and raring to go. Yet these last two scheduled Moon 
missions were cut. Why were they slashed when, as one 
science reporter tells us, “the hardware had been already 

Supposedly many people in our country were scream¬ 
ing against this expensive boondoggle, which they critical¬ 
ly called a “Moondoggle.” So Congress purportedly slashed 
the program. But the truth is that after tens of billions had 
been spent the cutback itself saved only $20 million per 
flight in operational costs since the rockets and space hard¬ 
ware to be used had been already paid for and were being 
readied to go. Even critics of manned space flights like Dr. 
Thomas Gold of Cornell University screamed out against 
those nonsensical cuts: “It’s like buying a Rolls-Royce,” 
carped Gold, “and then not because you want to 
save a few bucks on the gas.” 

The New York Times editorial of September 4, 1970, 
lamented this regrettable decision to slash Apollo Moon 
flights 18 and 19, observing that “an incredibly intricate 
technology and elaborate organization built to exploit that 
technology are, in effect, being abandoned . . . now that 
the easily bored world audience has begun to yawn.” 

Although ostensibly the move was motivated by budget 
concerns, is it not possible that our space agency already 
had conclusive evidence that the Moon was not only a 
spaceship but a presently occupied spacecraft? Did the as¬ 
tronaut encounters with UFOs worry NASA officials that 
another trip might bring startling encounters or revela¬ 
tions that might blow their cover of secrecy? 

Ostensibly NASA space officials and certainly many lead¬ 
ing lunar scientists around the world would be eager to re¬ 
turn. Earth scientists have pointed out time and again that 
trying to unravel the make-up of the Moon by sampling 
a half dozen areas of her surface is an extremely difficult 
job. As one lunar expert testified: “I would suggest that dis¬ 
covering everything we would like to know and need to 


know about the Moon in six landings is somewhat tanta¬ 
mount to trying to describe what the North American con¬ 
tinent is by sampling it in six spots for a few hours each.” 

Six manned trips to Luna have, if we are to believe 
NASA, settled nothing. Their scientists freely confess: The 
major questions remain. In fact, more questions, more 
contradictions, more confusion now exist than before 
Apollo started, some of them say. All we can be sure of is 
that the Moon swirls with mysteries. This may be true, but, 
as we have seen, the scientific facts indicate that she is, 
as our two Soviet scientists theorize, an articially hollowed- 
out planetoid steered into orbit around our water world. 

The characteristics of the Moon’s make-up indicated 
that even before we went up there. NASA’s Apollo data 
and findings tend to prove this. Even ancient documents 
and histories as well as legends and myths tell us this is the 
unbelievable truth. 

We also realize, however, that it could be wrong. But if 
it is, it would leave us with that bundle of contradictions, 
conflicts, and inexplicable mysteries, unexplainably ac¬ 
curate historical accounts, and, more importantly, inex¬ 
plicable scientific facts that would then seem to be totally 

Many space critics before the Apollo program com¬ 
plained “Why go to the Moon?” History, however, has 
proved that unexpected rewards often come from explora¬ 
tory endeavors. For instance, Columbus’s voyage led to the 
discovery of a new world. Now it looks like our Apollo 
Moon voyages have led to the discovery of a new world 
that man never dreamed existed. 

Columbus’s great exploration bore fruit even though he 
died, criticized and unsung in prison chains, without the 
great realization that he had in fact discovered a new world. 

In truth, it has been said of Columbus that (1) he did 
not know where he was going (which was right, since he 
thought he was going to India); (2) he did not know where 
he was when he got here (true again, for he thought he had 
reached India and even called the natives here Indians); 
(3) Columbus died never realizing where he had been! 

So too with our Apollo program. Our astronauts and 
astronomers never realized, in a sense, where they were go¬ 
ing. Everyone—except maybe a few in the inner sanctum of 


our space agency—thought we were journeying to Earth’s 
natural satellite. Actually, our astronauts went to an arti¬ 
ficially created alien world—a spaceship in our skies that 
was steered into orbit around our planet. They may have 
even gone to a presently inhabited world, if we are to be¬ 
lieve the UFO sightings they experienced while up there. 

Now it appears today that they really did not know 
actually where they had been—at least if you are to believe 
NASA. Will the astronauts die never realizing what kind 
of a world they had really traveled to? Personally, I am con¬ 
vinced they already know. 


The Moon at one time seemed unreachable—an impossi¬ 
ble dream. But man has achieved the unattainable, has 
reached the unreachable, and in so doing has given a 
tremendous lift to the sagging human spirit in these chaotic 
times. It should be an inspiration to thinking men every¬ 
where to reflect what the foresight and energy of a people 
determined and dedicated to a goal can accomplish. The 
great space program culminated at the end of the sixties, 
as President John F. Kennedy foretold, with man’s explora¬ 
tion of the Moon—the single greatest achievement of mod¬ 
ern times and without a doubt the single greatest accom¬ 
plishment of all time! 

Now it turns out that our lunar space program may very 
well also be the single greatest discovery of all time—for 
it has revealed the truth about our neighboring world, a 
revelation that may well lead to a better understanding not 
only of our own world but even of ourselves—even of our 
origin and our destiny! 

Should man therefore go back and try to remove all 
doubt? This, of course, is debatable. In the sixties before 
man went to the Moon, Bertrand Russell wrote an article 
which was published in the London Times on the eve of 
the Apollo 11 Moon launch. The article was entitled “Why 
Man Should Keep Away from the Moon.” For reasons Rus¬ 
sell never dreamed, perhaps he is right. Perhaps man’s go¬ 
ing to the Moon is a flirtation with undreamed-of disaster. 


But we doubt it. More probably it will lead to definite 
proof of undreamed-of discovery. 

A reader of my first Moon book pointed out to me that ^ 
well-known American psychic, David Bubar, Baptist min¬ 
ister and executive director of the Spiritual Outreach So¬ 
ciety (SOS), an organization devoted to psychic research, 
predicted at the outset of our Apollo voyages that ‘‘within 
the next 60 months (by 1975), we will discover that a 
highly developed form of life exists in outer space and has 
existed for a long time. . . . Coupled to this will be further 
study of the origin of the Moon that will reveal facts so 
shocking that we will think twice before venturing any 
further into the deep blackness of space!” (Rene Nooriber- 
ger, You Are Psychic: The Incredbile Story of David 

Would reopening our lunar space program open a Pan¬ 
dora’s box of problems? Possibly. But we hold this to be a 
false presumption. First of all, if alien beings really do 
exist in the Moon, they certainly do not mean us any harm. 
Evidence shows they have been around a long time, as we 
have seen. 


The great Apollo voyages to the Moon are over. These 
Moon trips were a mind-stretching leap into the cosmos. It 
turned out to be a journey into the unknown—a journey to 
a world of mystery that man never really understood or ex¬ 
pected ever to exist. Richard Lewis, that science reporter 
par excellence, summed it all up so well: . . perhaps the 
Moon the scientists thought they were seeing was not the 
real Moon at all, perhaps they were being fooled, as the 
early sixteenth-century mariners were when they believed 
that Newfoundland was a promontory of the coast of 
China.” ( The Voyages of Apollo .} 

The strange world of our Moon, which we have so re¬ 
cently explored, appears to be a strange new world for man 
—the strange world of our Spaceship Moon. 


your moon odyssey 

Undoubtedly you the reader set out on this Moon 
odyssey as a pure skeptic—as I myself did. After all, 
man has been studying our satellite for centuries—if not 
for thousands of years—and no scientist up until recently 
has ever suggested that the Moon is anything more than a 
huge natural satellite circling our Earth. Even though 
some more enterprising scientists wondered about those 
reports of strange moving lights and happenings taking 
place on her surface, and a few even speculated that it might 
harbor alien beings who are using it as a base for UFO 
operations to the nearby planet Earth, no one ever sug¬ 
gested that the Moon itself is a UFO—a spaceship. 

It is undoubtedly still difficult for you to believe. I know 
it is for me. At a glance there does not appear to be any¬ 
thing unusual about this barren, hostile, waterless, airless 
chunk of rock. However, as we have seen, the Moon is 
really an invisible island world, for it gives every evidence 
underneath of being a spaceship. 

Frankly, I must confess at times I am overwhelmed from 
the sheer mind-boggling impact of it all. I find myself ask¬ 
ing time and again: How can this be possibly true? 

I began with rank skepticism, with a mind closed to even 
the possibility. I began researching this theory to use the 
Spaceship Moon idea of the Soviets as a vehicle for a 
science-fiction novel. Suddenly I began to see that the facts 
and findings of our lunar program actually backed and 
even proved the startling, shocking artificial-Moon theory. 

Then and only then, as the Apollo findings gathered 
momentum and compelling evidence poured in, did I 
finally grudgingly, reluctantly admit it could have validity. 

Now the Moon has changed for me—as I imagine it has 
for you. Now when I see the Moon in our skies I find myself 
attracted by this strange magnetic mystery world. I stare 
at her, contemplating how this synchronized satellite has 
kept this same face gazing down on man’s world for eons— 
as if she were keeping watch on our every move, as if our 
Spaceship Moon were continually taking the measure of 
mankind. Wondering, indeed, if she is still inhabited, as 
our Apollo flights, buzzed as they were by UFOs and 
plagued by strange radio signals, indicate. 


Today when I see the Moon I find myself drawn to her. 
The strange luminosity of Luna is spellbinding. And the 
more I dwell on this thundering discovery, the more my 
own mind becomes numb by the wonderment of it all. I find 
myself staring at Selene’s serene surface and wondering 
what really is inside this enigmatic ball of rock and metal. 

Suddenly this familiar orb which I thought I knew so 
well seems so different. Its bleak, forbidding, alien-look¬ 
ing surface now appears arresting and awesome—as never 
before. The Moon for me has become an unearthly experi¬ 

In the privacy of my own world of thoughts I find my¬ 
self continually dwelling on these staggering ideas. We still 
find it hard to believe, even after all our research, after all 
the impressive evidence, that our Moon has not always been 
a constant companion of Earth but was once a rover in 
space—an alien world whose masters and creators drove it 
here across the starlit shores of vast space to lock this 
spacecraft world in orbit around us. 

Many readers have by now bowed before the over¬ 
whelming weight of scientific fact. At least, if you are not 
completely convinced by the compelling evidence mar¬ 
shaled here, you certainly must agree you will never again 
raise your eyes to the Moon in our heavens without wonder¬ 
ing whether or not our nearest neighbor in space is truly 
a huge alien spacecraft! 

I myself, who started out as a complete skeptic, have 
gradually, through discovery after discovery, fact after fact 
which turned out to be pieces of the puzzle that fit Space¬ 
ship Moon, slowly changed my mind until now I am 
thoroughly convinced that the Soviet scientists are abso¬ 
lutely correct. 

Do I ever doubt the theory? Yes, doubts do crop up 
from time to time—not factual doubts but mental and 
emotional misgivings. For it is still yet all so unbelievable. 
Certainly I have come to reluctantly realize, after all my 
researching which points unerringly to the truth of the 
spaceship theory, that I am compelled to accept it. I natu¬ 
rally also felt the urge to tell my fellow humans about this 
great discovery. At first I hesitated—and more than once. 
I found I needed the courage of my convictions. I wavered, 
even as Bishop John Wilkins tells us he did when he too 


discovered constant references to the “gods” coming from 
inside the world of the Moon to help mankind. 

This Anglican bishop, who authored Discovery of a New 
World —the alien world inside our Moon—admits candidly: 
“I must needs confess, that I had often thought with myself 
that it was possible there might be a world in the Moon, yet 
it seemed such an uncouth opinion that I have durst dis¬ 
covered it, for fear of being counted singular and ridiculous, 
but afterward having read Plutarch, Galileo and Kepler, 
with some others, I then concluded that it was not only 
possible there might be, but probable that there was an¬ 
other habitable world in that Planet.” 

Like Bishop Wilkins, I hesitated and wavered—for near¬ 
ly five years—before finally the facts overwhelmed me into 
actual authorship of my first book, Our Mysterious Space¬ 
ship Moon . The very idea that the Moon is an alien-created 
spaceship, the product of alien intelligence, I realize is just 
on the face of it seemingly much too unbelievable to con¬ 
sider. I realize as I undertake the writing of these works 
that I too might be in the same boat as other bold original 
thinkers in this world, and be severely criticized, even 
labeled a crackpot. 

I know that this mind-staggering theory will come under 
similar fire and I its author might suffer by becoming the 
target of closed-minded derision. I therefore offer these 
findings boldly but not without trepidation. 

But truth is truth, whatever it might be. Furthermore, 
my fear does not compare to that of Copernicus and 
Galileo. I do not have to fear being burned at the stake or 
even being imprisoned for my findings. 

Sincerely, I hope this book will be received not just with 
open-minded acceptance, but with open-minded considera¬ 
tion and appraisal. Remember, we are all searching for the 
truth, whatever it might be. 

We sincerely hope that scientists who are stumbling 
around trying to find a solution to the many mysteries of 
the Moon—to its origins and make-up—seriously look at 
the evidence and consider the theory. 

Although we can hope that even skeptical scientists will 
open-mindedly give it serious consideration, we are aware 
that with such a bizarre theory the chances are against it. 
Most scientists and in fact most people tend to live in their 


own little world of accepted thought. It is not surprising 
that human beings who over the years come to accept things 
as they are interpreted by orthodox scientists have come 
naturally to look upon the world revolving around Earth 
(actually, we both revolve around each other) as just an 
ordinary satellite. Hence, they are not going to be open to 
accepting—or for that matter even considering—such an 
unorthodox view. 

This is the very reason why revolutionary theories which 
take a completely different tack from the accepted norm 
have always had trouble. Not that scientists shouldn’t be 
skeptical. They must be. But still they should not close 
their minds even to radical possibilities. If they had taken 
an open-minded attitude hundreds of years ago, neither 
Copernicus and Galileo would have had such difficulties 
and harassment. 

But, realistically, it is not surprising that men like 
Copernicus and Galileo ran into a hornet’s nest of opposi¬ 
tion. After all, human beings had come over the many cen¬ 
turies to look upon their own world as being the center of 
the universe. When they challenged this concept, claim¬ 
ing that the Sun was not the center of our solar system, 
it was just too upsetting, too radical for the powers that 
ran things at that time to accept. In fact, even to tolerate. 
This naturally provoked fierce opposition and suppression 
of such a dangerous idea. 

Admittedly, it seemed on the surface to be too ridiculous 
to the average person. Like the Spaceship Moon theory of 
today, the unbelievable thesis that the Sun, not the Earth, 
was the center of things appeared preposterous. Why, any¬ 
one save a blind man or idiot could see the Sun rose in the 
east, went across the sky, and set in the west. Anyone could 
see the Sun went around us! 


Certainly the human race has come a long way since the 
original suppression of this medieval idea. But accepted, 
entrenched ideas are difficult to change. Radical, unortho¬ 
dox concepts such as that of Spaceship Moon will turn out 
to be too upsetting for the orthodox scientific order of 


things. Especially if this idea begins to seriously take hold 
on the mind of the masses, then the scientific world threat¬ 
ened to bow again before established truth will fight a 
bitter fight once more, we are afraid. 

We realize also that making such radical ideas as Space¬ 
ship Moon known has proven in the past to be risky busi¬ 
ness. In ancient Greece five centuries before Christ a 
philosopher-teacher by the name of Anaxagoras of Clazo- 
menae, a mentor of Socrates, was condemned to death for 
claiming that the Moon was made of essentially the same 
material as our Earth. We also know that Galileo was im¬ 
prisoned and would have been put to the torch if he had 
not withdrawn his shocking theory about the position of 
our world in the cosmic scheme of things. 

Copernicus, the author of the heliocentric theory, was 
so afraid that his radical idea might create a storm of con¬ 
troversy resulting in punishment that he held back the 
publication of his findings until he was on his deathbed. 

Of course, scientists today need not worry about such 
penalties. Neither do I. 

Realistically, however, the scientific community as well 
as the media will ignore this theory—or at best classify this 
book as science fiction. 

A top NASA expert, Edgar Cartwright, in the NASA 
publication Apollo Expeditions to the Moon has made this 
intriguing observation: “The early telescopes that first re¬ 
vealed the crater-pocked face of the Moon touched off 
several centuries of speculation about the lunar surface by 
scientists and science fiction writers alike—it often being 
unclear who was writing the fiction.” 

I am sure that although it now appears that science-fiction 
writers were closer to the truth about the Moon than our 
scientists, the establishment will collectively hardly take 
notice of this theory despite the weight of its evidence. 
While those in the inner sanctum of our space agency will 
doubtless be disturbed by these revelations, the rest of the 
scientific community will almost certainly pass it all off as 
science fiction. 

We ardently hope things will be different this time 
around, but unfortunately they will probably not be. 

I can hear the scientific skeptics shouting aloud: Who 
are you to stand alone against the scientific world? Actually, 


we don’t. This, remember, is not our theory—but the brain¬ 
child of two Soviet scientific researchers. Also, it now 
appears that other leading scientists outside the Iron Cur¬ 
tain, including a NASA researcher at the Jet Propulsion 
Center and an Oxford physicist, agree with it! 

However, even if I did stand alone against the world I 
would be in good company. Remember how often through 
the history of science such has been the case—Copernicus, 
Galileo, Pasteur, Kepler, the Wright Brothers, Marconi— 
all stood alone. 

Even our NASA leaders recognized this fact, for in their 
recent publication The New Mars they quote Galileo, one 
of the “crackpots” whom the scientific and religious estab¬ 
lishment opposed and forced to shut up. And it is an inter¬ 
esting quote they pass along: “In questions on science the 
authority of a thousand is not worth the reasoning of a 
single individual.” 

So be it with this theory. 

It was Galileo who through his pioneer telescopic studies, 
as Science News put it, “transformed the Moon from a ball 
of light to a ball of rock.” (November 29, 1969.) 

Now it looks as though scientists are going to eventually 
be forced to change their conception of the Moon again— 
this time from a ball of rock to a world of rocks and metal; 
from a natural satellite of Earth into a huge hollowed-out 

How long will it take before this eventually happens? We 
do not know. But as the great Max Planck, whose quantum 
theory shook up the scientific world just a few decades ago, 
once observed: “An important scientific innovation rarely 
makes its way by gradually winning over and converting 
its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. 
What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out 
and that the growing generation is familiarized with the 
idea from the beginning! Another instance of the fact that 
the future is with youth.” 

If this day ever dawns, then the world will be in for a 
revolution—a revolution of changing ideas. For the realiza¬ 
tion that the Moon is-more than just a moon but a world 
harboring intelligent beings is awesome and disturbing in its 

This is a mind-stunning idea, for in facing the reality of 


the Moon we may be ultimately facing the reality of our¬ 
selves. Our whole new outlook * on our satellite will, we 
are convinced, lead us to take a whole new look at our¬ 
selves—at our origins, our past, our purpose, and, yes, 
shockingly possible, even our future. 

At the beginning we asked you not to accept anything 
about the Moon but to examine the evidence with an open 
mind and reach your own conclusions. We have followed 
the facts, lead where they might. This book has thus been 
short on speculation, long on evidence and data. And that 
is the way it should be. 

Now an overwhelming array of speculative questions 
begins to besiege our minds. Who are these intelligent Moon 
beings? Where do they come from? What do they want 
with us? (Or should we say, what have they had to do with 
us, for evidence Morris Jessup cites leads one to believe 
as he does that they have been around for thousands of 

Are their minds like ours (or should we maybe say, are 
our minds like theirs)? Are they godlike or just beings like 
ourselves—except, of course, on a much higher level of 
development? Could they be pure intelligence? 

There is no end, seemingly, to the questions that now 
swirl in one’s mind. Questions that hinge and swing around 
the ultimate questions of man’s existence: Where did we 
come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? 

The author does not intend to impinge on the realm of 
religion. Nor invade the field of the occult. We realize that 
many people abhor the thought that there may be another 
form of intelligent life out there—that other intelligences 
indeed are not only watching and observing us, but are cer¬ 
tainly superior to us. 

But I am convinced that our minds, shrink as they may 
from the frightening possible answers to these all-important 
questions, are so structured and designed that they instinc¬ 
tively hunger and yearn for the truth. Seek the truth what¬ 
ever it might be. Let the chips fall where they may. And 
as long as all of us are seeking the truth, whatever it might 

* With our new Space Age cosmic experiences, more and more 
people are beginning to spell our Moon and Earth with capital let¬ 
ters; as Buckminster Fuller observes, our new cosmic outlook re¬ 
quires that they should be. 


be, there can ultimately be no conflict between religion, 
philosophy, science, and even the occult. For there can be 
only one truth—only one true answer to the origin of the 
Moon, or, for that matter, the origin of man. 

Strangely enough, the fact that the Moon is a spaceship 
seems in our view of the evidence to be the key to a myriad 
of puzzles perplexing our planet and its inhabitants. Not 
the least of which are those persistent Unidentified Flying 
Objects which researchers (and, fortunately, more and more 
of them scientists!) have found solid evidence for existing 
not just in our present era but over the long past of man¬ 
kind—stretching back into the mists of time. What are they 
and where do they come from? “Spaceships, 11 say the ma¬ 
jority of those studying the problem. Although this may be 
a gross oversimplification—for only God knows what kind 
of immense intelligences we are dealing with—it would 
seem to be the logical answer. 

In philosophy there is a rule of reason (though not ac¬ 
cepted by all) called Occam’s Razor that states that if there 
are a number of equally valid solutions to a philosophical 
problem, the simplest is probably the correct one. The 
astronomer Morris Jessup claims that it is also “a basic 
postulate of science that the simplest explanation is 
the best.” {The Expanding Case for the UFO.) 

Researchers, I believe—whether they be UFO research¬ 
ers, philosophical, religious, occult, scientific—will all find 
that the truth about our Moon is the key to the truth about 
our world and ourselves. This is Jessup’s judgment, too. 

We are convinced that this mind-boggling, mind-stunning 
theory will someday provide a synthesis for all the mys¬ 
teries swirling around man. 


On August 12, 1971, commander David Scott, conclud¬ 
ing an Apollo 15 press conference, summed it all up: 

“We went to the Moon as trained observers in order to 
gather data not only with our instruments but with our 
minds. I’d like to quote a statement from Plutarch which 
I think expresses our feelings since we’ve come back: ‘The 
mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be lighted.’ ” 


We ardently hope that the revelations of this book and 
the startling solution to the Moon’s mysteries will light a 
fire in many of the brilliant minds that grace our globe. 
Hopefully, this book will fire these minds not only with the 
puzzles about our Moon but about man, and impel them 
to seek to know more about both. Who knows but that 
someone reading this book will marshal someday the final 
conclusive evidence, compelling even our secretive govern¬ 
ment to acknowledge the truth. Maybe then together we 
will assault the greatest puzzle facing man—himself. For 
the Moon may be the key even to the mystery of man 
himself I 

In conclusion, the Moon may not be a devastating orb 
of truth but a fount of revelation about man and his past— 
the truth of which may set man and his mind free. 

Once space enthusiasts described the Moon as a stepping- 
stone into our universe. It indeed could be just that. And 
if the Spaceship theory is correct, it could well be a leaping 
stone to man's understanding of himself and his own world . 



Asimov, Isaac. Asimov on Astronomy. Doubleday, 1974. 
-. Intelligent Man's Guide to Science . Basic Books, 


—-—. Is Anyone There? Doubleday, 1956. 

Astronauts. We Seven. Simon & Schuster, 1962. 

Bergier, Jacques. Extraterrestrial Visitation from Prehis~ 
toric Times to the Present. Henry Regnery, 1973. 

Bova, Ben. The New Astronomies. St. Martin’s Press, 1972. 
Cade, Maxwell. Other Worlds than Ours. Tapplinger Pub¬ 
lications, 1969. 

Charroux, Robert. The Mysterious Past. Berkley, 1973. 
Clarke, Arthur. The Promise of Space . Harper & Row, 


-. Voices in the Sky. Harper & Row, 1965. 

Cole, Dandridge, and Donald Cox. Islartds in Space. Chil¬ 
ton Books, 1964. 

Condon, Edward. The Scientific Study of Unidentified Fly - 
ing Objects. Bantam, 1969. • 

Cooper, Henry. Apollo on the Moon. Dial, 1969. 

-. Moon Rocks. Dial, 1970. 

Corliss, William. Mysteries of the Universe. Crowell, 1967. 

-. Strange Universe. Custom Copy Center, 1975. 

Durant, Will. The Life of Greece. Simon & Schuster, 1966. 
Friedman, Stanton. UFOs—Myth and Mystery. 

Guest, John, ed. The Earth and its Satellite. McKay, 1971. 
Hynek, J. Allen. The UFO Experience. Henry Regnery, 


Irwin, James. To Rule the Night: The Discovery Voyage of 
Astronaut James Irwin . A. J, Holman, 1973. 

Jessup, Morris. The Case for the UFO . Citadel Press, 1955. 

-. The Expanding Case for the UFO . Citadel Press, 


Keyhoe, Donald. The Flying Saucer Conspiracy . Holt, 


Leonard, George. Somebody Else Is on the Moon . McKay, 

Lewis, Richard. The Voyages of Apollo, Quadrangle/New 
York Times Book Co., 1976. 

Magor, John. Our UFO Visitors, Hancock House, 1977. 
Mansfield, John, ed. Man on the Moon . Stein & Day, 1969. 
Marsden, B. G., and A. G. W. Cameron. Earth-Moon 
System . Plenum Press, 1966. 

Moore, Patrick, A Guide to the Moon . W. W. Norton, 


Pensees , editors of. Velikovsky Reconsidered, Doubleday, 

Rabanovich, Eugene, ed. Man on the Moon . Basic Books, 

Reader’s Digest , editors of. Strange Stories , Amazing Facts . 
Reader’s Digest Association, 1976. 

Riabchiker, E. I. Russians in Space, Doubleday, 1971. 
Rosenblum, Arthur. Unpopular Science, Running Press, 


Ruppelt, Edward. Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, 
Ace, 1964. 

Sagan, Carl, and Josif Shklovskii. Intelligent Life in the 
Universe . Holden Day, 1966. 

Sendy, Jean. The Coming of the Gods, Berkley, 1973. 
Shelton, William R. Winning the Moon, Little, Brown, 
& Company, 1970. 

Sullivan, Walter. We Are Not Alone, McGraw-Hill, 1964. 
-, ed. America’s Race for the Moon: Story of Proj¬ 
ect Apollo, Random House, 1962. 

Stonely, J., and A. T. Lawton. Is There Anyone Out There? 
Warner, 1974. 

-. CETI (Communication with Extra-Terrestrial In¬ 
telligence). Warner, 1976. 

Wilkins, H. Percival. Our Moon . Frederick Muller, Ltd., 



Wilford, John Noble. We Reach for the Moon . W. W. Nor¬ 
ton, 1971. 

Wilson, Don. Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon . Dell, 1975. 


Lunar Luminescence by M. Sidran and Associates at 
Grumman Research. 

MUFON Symposium by Midwest (Mutual) UFO Net¬ 
work, 1973. 


Proceedings of Apollo 11 Lunar Conference . 3 Volumes 
(2493 pages). Pergamon Press, 1970. 

Proceedings of the Second Lunar Conference . 3 Volumes 
(2818 pages). M.I.T. Press, 1971. 

Proceedings of the Third Lunar Conference . 3 Volumes 
(3263 pages). M.I.T. Press, 1972. 

Proceedings of the Fourth Lunar Conference , 3 Volumes 
(3290 pages). Pergamon Press, 1973. 

Proceedings of the Fifth Lunar Conference. 3 Volumes 
(3134 pages). Pergamon Press, 1974. 

Proceedings of the Sixth Lunar Conference . 3 Volumes 
(3637 pages). Pergamon Press; 1975. 

The Moon , An International Journal of Lunar Studies. 13 
Volumes. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Co., 

Handbook of Chemistry and Physics . 54th Edition. Chem¬ 
ical Rubber Co. 


Apollo 11: Preliminary Science Report . U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1969. 

Apollo 12: Preliminary Science Report . U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1970. 

Apollo 14: Preliminary Science Report . U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1971., 

Apollo 15: Preliminary Science Report . U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1971. 

Apollo 16: Preliminary Science Report . U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1972. 


Apollo 17: Preliminary Science Report . U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1973. 

Apollo 14: Science at Fra Mauro. U.S. Government Print¬ 
ing Office, 1971. 

Apollo 15: At Hadley Base . U.S. Government Printing 
Office, 1971. 

Apollo 16: On the Moon with Apollo 16. U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1972. 

Apollo 17: On the Moon with Apollo 17. U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1972. 

NASA's Apollo Expeditions to the Moon . U.S. Government 
Printing Office, 1975. 




Aviation Today and Space Technology 

Detroit Free Press and News 
Modern People Press 
National Enquirer 
National Geographic 

New York Times and New York Times Magazine 
Pensees , Student Academic Freedom Forum Magazine 
Physics Today 

Popular Science .* 

Saga and Saga UFO Report 


Science News 

Scientific American 

Sky and Telescope 

Spaceflight: Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 
Space World 
UFO logy 



Argosy , “Mysterious Monuments on the Moon” by Dr. 
Ivan Sanderson, August 1970. 


Washington Post , “Six Mysterious Statuesque Shadows 
Photographed on the Moon by Orbiter,” by Thomas 
O’Toole, November 22, 1966, p. 1. 

NASA’s Chronological Catalogue of Reported Lunar 
Events , NASA, July, 1968. 

UFO logy, “Our Mysterious Moon,” D. William Hauck, 
editor, Spring Issue, 1976. 

Flying Saucers on the Moon , Riley Crabb, Director of 
Borderland Sciences Research Assoc,, pp. 1-41. 

Science , “Reopening the Question: The UFO Experience 
by Dr. Bruce Murray (book review), August 25, 1974, 
Vol. 177, pp. 688-9. 


Sputnik , “Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence,” 
by Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, July 1970. 

Science Fiction Plus: Preview of the Future , “Interstellar 
Flight,” by Dr. Leslie Shepherd, April 1953 (Vol, 1, No. 
2), pp. 56-60. 


The Moon , An International Journal of Lunar Science, 
“Density Within the Moon and Implications for Lunar 
Composition,” by Dr. Sean C. Solomon, Vol. 9, 1974, 
(pp. 147-165). 

Science News Letter: “Moon Like Hollow Sphere,” April 

22, 1961, p. 244. 

“Apollo 12’s Moon: Surprises Al¬ 
ready,” November 29, 1969, pp. 

“Bonanza from the Highlands,” by 
Everly Driscoll, July 1972 (Vol. 
102 ). 

Astronautics , February 1962, p. 225. 

Science , November 12, 1971, p. 688. 



Astronautics and Aeronautics , “The Contending Moon,” 
by Dr. Harold Urey, January 1969. 

The Moon , An International Journal of Lunar Science: 

Bombardment as a Cause of Lunar Asym¬ 
metry,” by John A. Wood, VoL 8, 1973 (pp. 

“The System of Lunar Craters,” revised by 
C. A. Cross, Vol. 3, p. 408ff. 

National Geographic , “That Orbed Maiden . . . by 
Kenneth Weaver, February 1969 (pp. 207-230). 

The New York Times , “Lunar Churning Surmised from 
Samples of Rock,” by John Noble Wilford, January 7, 
1970, p. 32. Also see Walter Sullivan, November 9, 1969. 
The New York Times Magazine , “The Moon is a Rosetta 
Stone,” by Dr. Robert Jastrow, November 1969. 

Science , “Properties and Composition of Lunar Materials: 
Earth Analysis,” by Edward Schrieker and O. L. Ander¬ 
son, June 26, 1970. 

Scientific American , “The Lunar Soil,” by John A. Wood, 
August 1971 (Vol. 223, No. 2), pp. 14-23. 

Science News Journal: “Apollo Rocks Analyzed Tracing 

the Moon’s Origin,” August 16, 
1969 (Vol. 96), p. 129. 

“Migrating Metals on the Moon” 
(cover title); also “Dating of Moon 
Samples: Pitfalls and Paradoxes,” 
January 1, 1972 (Vol. 101), pp. 

“Apollo 15 Data: The Moon’s In¬ 
terior,” September 11, 1971 (pp. 

“Man in the Moon Has Two 
Faces,” December 24, 1966, p. 

“Bonanza from the Highlands,” 
by E. Driscoll, July 1, 1972 (Vol. 
102), pp. 12-13. 

Also see news item Sc. News Jour¬ 
nal , January 17, 1970, p. 69. 

U.S. News and World Report , “As the Moon Yields Its 
Secrets,” January 19, 1970, pp. 28-29,, 




Sputnik , “Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?” 
Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, July 1970, 

The Moon , An International Journal of Lunar Studies , 

“Moonquakes and Lunar Tectonism,” by 
Gary Latham, M. Ewing, et al., Vol. 7, 
1972 (pp. 373-382). 

“The Thermal History of the Moon,” by 
C. A. Cross, 1972. 

“The Apollo 15 Lunar Heat Flow Measure¬ 
ment,” by M. Lanseth, et al., Vol. 4, 1972 
(pp. 390-417). 

Fourth Lunar Conference , “Iron Abundance 
in the Moon From Magnetometer Measure¬ 
ments,” by Dr. Curtis Parkin, Palmer Dyal, 
and William Daily, Vol. 3 (pp. 2974-2961). 
Popular Science , “Our Ideas About the Moon,” Dr. Wern- 
her von Braun, January 1972 (pp. 67-68). 

Science News; “An Out Of Whack Moon,” January 29, 

1972 (Vol. 101), p. 73. 

“Possible Lunar Hot Spots,” June 12, 1971 
(Vol. 96), p. 403. 

“Man in the Moon Has Two Faces,” 
December 24, 1966 (Vol. 90), p. 531. 


The New York Times , “Seismic Net Set to Find Source 
of Tremors as Moon Nears,” Walter Sullivan, August 4, 
1972, pp. 1-8. Also see August 27, 1971. 

Science News: “More Light on the Moon,” April 3, 1971 

(Vol. 99). 

“A Look Inside the Moon,” April 7, 1973 
(Vol. 103), pp. 228-9. 


Chemistry, February 1974. 

The Moon , An International Journal of Lunar Studies , 


“The Thermal History of the Moon,*’ C.A. Cross, Vol. 4, 
1972, pp. 157-158. 

The New York Times Magazine , “The Moon Is More of a 

Mystery Than Ever,” by Earl Ubell, April 
16, 1972 (pp. 32-3, 50-1). 

“The Moon is a Rosetta Stone,” by Robert 
Jastrow, November 9, 1969. Also see The 
New York Times November 16, 1969, and 
January 7, 1970. 

Physics Today , March 1974 (Vol. 27), pp. 44-49. 

Sky and Telescope , June 1973. 

National Geographic , “That Orbed Maiden . . . by Ken¬ 
neth Weaver, February 1969 (pp. 207-230). 

Science , “Is the Moon Hot or Cold?,” Dr. D. L. Anderson 
and T. C. Hanks, Vol. 178, 1972, pp. 1245-9. 

Scientific American , “The Magnetism of the Moon,” 
Palmer Dyal and Dr. Curtis Parkin, August 1971 (Vol. 
225), pp. 63-73. 

Science News : “Moon May Give Evidence on How Stars 

Are Born,” May 15, 1963 (Vol. 87), p. 

“Scientists Hold a Landmark Session,” 
January 10, 1970 (Vol. 97), pp, 33—34. 
“The Moon’s Radioactive Material,” April 
7, 1973 (Vol. 103), p. 224. 

“Another Vote for Moon Water,” January 
29, 1972 (Vol. 101), p. 93. Also see Octo¬ 
ber 23, 1971. 

“How Did the Moon Get Magnetized” 
(cover title); “That Magnetic Moon: How 
Did It Get That Way?” by E. Driscoll, May 
27, 1972 (Vol. 101), pp. 346-347. 

“At the Moon Conference: Consensus and 
Conflict,” June 23, 1971 (Vol. 99), pp. 

“Possible Observation of Water Vapor on 
the Moon,” October 23, 1971 (Vol. 100) 
p. 277. 

Third Lunar Conference : “Water Vapor, Whence Comest 
Thou?” by Dr. J. W. Freeman, A. Hill, R. Vandrak, Vol. 

3, p. 227. 



The Moon: An International Journal of Lunar Studies , 
“Origin and Evolution of the Earth-Moon System,” by 
H. Alfren and G. Arrehenius, Vol. 5, 1972, pp. 211—229. 
Science News : “A Look Inside the Moon,” by E. Driscoll, 

April 7, 1973 (Vol. 103), pp. 228-9. 
“Apollo Returns,” August 2, 1969 (Vol. 
96), pp. 95-96. 

Scientific American, “Carbon Chemistry of the Moon,” by 
G. Englinton, James R. Maxwell, and Colin T. Pillinger, 
October 1972 (Vol. 227), pp. 80-90. 

Science, “Reopening the Question: The UFO Experience 
by Dr. Bruce Murray (book review), Vol. 177, p. 688. 
Missiles and Rockets , August 10, 1964, p. 72. 

Detroit Free Press , “Mystery Force Pesters Apollo Station” 
(New York Times News Service), April 22, 1976 (p. 8-B). 


Science Digest, “Is There a Tunnel on the Moon?” No¬ 
vember 1952 (Vol. 32), p. 70. 



Spaceflight, The Journal of the British Astronomical So- 
ciety, “Space Probe From Epsilon Bootis,” by D. A. Lunan, 
April 1973, pp. 122-133. 

Time , “Message From a Star . . . April 9, 1973, pp. 



And Selected From Sphere’s Non-Fiction List 


‘Enigmatic objects fly across our sky; monuments whose 
purpose is unknown to us stand on the surface of our 
land, and beneath it are buried structures belonging to 
no known civilization. Mystery is all around us and 
neither our science nor our history can give an answer to 
it. In spite of everything, and in the face of opposition, 
silence or disapproval from those who do not want the 
veil to be lifted, Man tries to break open the door that 
leads to knowledge. Documents are speaking, initiates 
are breaking the seals of tablets hidden in sanctuaries — 
Man will soon know much more about his unknown 
past . . 

Robert Charroux in MASTERS OF THE WORLD 

Among Charroux’s shaking disclosures are: — 

* Proof that a Universal Deluge — with waves of six 
thousand feet — did indeed occur in ancient times 

* The true facts behind the Miracle at Fatima 

* The fascinating history of the Rosicrucians, .for many 
centuries the most carefully guarded secret society in 
the world 

* The secret powers of jade — and the enigma of The 
Man in the Jade Mask . . . 

* The strange stone discs of Tibet with their awesome 
message of spacecraft visiting Earth in remote 

These and many more such revelations will make you 
change the way you think about history — and your 
own lives . . . 


07221 2271 3 


by Watkins, Ambrose & Miles 


Research for what was originally intended as a 
straightforward TV documentary on the scientific ‘Brain 
Drain’ from Britain revealed some extremely disturbing 

* Many people joining the Brain Drain are vanishing 
off the face of the Earth — literally 

■* Earth will soon be unable to support life: our 

climate’s recent strange behaviour is only a warm-up 
for the cataclysms to come 

* The super-powers have been working secretly together 
in space for decades 

* Government agencies are kidnapping ordinary people 
and turning them into mindless slaves by advanced 
brainwashing methods 

* Astronauts’ reports of strange things they saw on the 
Moon have been suppressed 

* Ultra-secret joint US/USSR conferences are held each 
month in a submarine beneath the Arctic ice-cap 

And this was just the tip of the iceberg. Behind these 
and many more sinister features lurks the top secret 
operation known as ALTERNATIVE 3 — an interna¬ 
tional government conspiracy so monstrous that the 
human mind can scarcely grasp its true enormity. This 
courageous book goes beyond even the ground-breaking 
TV expose to reveal the full awesome horror of 


0 7221 1145 2 


by George H. Leonard 


Few people noticed the secret code words used by 
astronauts to describe the Moon. 

Until now, few knew about the strange moving lights 
they reported. 

Or were aware of the huge mechanical contrivances seen 
working in the craters of the Moon. 

George H. Leonard foilght through the official veil of 
secrecy and studied thousands of NASA photographs, 
talked candidly with dozens of officials from NASA and 
listened to hours of astronauts’ tapes. Here he presents 
the stunning and inescapable conclusion of his work: 




0 7221 5486 0 

And from Abacus Books 

by Mark Washburn 


When the Viking Lander touched down on the surface 
of Mars in the autumn of 1976, Man had finally reached 
the planet that had fascinated him for centuries. In 
MARS AT LAST! Mark Washburn brings together all 
that Man has dreamt and learned about the Red Planet, 
from the war-symbolism of the ancient Greeks, Persians 
and Romans, through the flights of fancy of such writers 
as H. G. Wells and Robert Heinlein, right up to full 
details of the discoveries made by the Viking Missions. 


0 34913591 6 



* All the Apollo moon flights have been 
followed by alien spacecraft - where do they 
come from? 

* Soviet space probes have photographed 
strange pyramidal structures on tho moon's 

surface - who built them? 

* A strange lunar tunnel of glass has been 
observed by American astronomers - how 

did it get there? 

* Extraterrestrial voices wore picked up by 
US astronauts whilst looking for moon-rock 

samples - who was responsible for those 

These and many other searching questions are the 
subject of this startling investigation into the origins 
and purpose of our moon. All the evidence points in 
one direction - THE MOON HARBOURS 
THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Even NASA now privately 
admits the overwhelming proof for believing our 
moon is no more and no less than a GIGANTIC 

Don't miss these other bestsellers: 

- both In Sphere Books 

imttmi cosmoioot 
Minanauoenn mstutuun uitnmic 

ikimMN ftttr